ASIAN JOURNAL OF CONTROL

I checked the submission record and found that it was submitted in late April 2022. After the editorial department received it, it took less than a month for them to perform some necessary reviews and plagiarism checks. They were relatively quick in sending it for external review. In August, we received the first review comments. Each of the two reviewers raised eleven or twelve questions, totaling more than twenty. The reviewers were very meticulous in their review, but compared to European journals, their comments were not sharp, and the questions were not tricky (when I submitted an article to a European journal, after proving the convergence of the iterative approximation sequence, I would still be asked to prove the consistency between the optimal solution of the approximation sequence and the original problem, which was simply soul-searching).

The comments from the first reviewer mainly focused on the structure of the article, requesting adjustments to make it more reader-friendly. They also asked for a clear introduction to the application background, research status, and gap, as well as a clear explanation of the motivation. Additionally, they requested specific explanations for some uncommon concepts and symbols that were not clarified. After seeing the review comments, I felt relieved and thought that there should be no major issues. The editor gave us three months to make revisions because they had other manuscripts to handle during that period (at that time, I was dealing with the soul-searching questions from the European reviewer). So, I kept postponing until it was almost the deadline (November) before replying. The Associate Editor (AE) was very responsible and immediately requested additional content for some minor issues mentioned in our reply, the day after they received it. They sent it for a second review by the reviewers the day after we replied.

2021.8.1: Submission
2021.10.16: First-round review results were released. One reviewer of the journal mistakenly rejected my article. The previous first-round results were mixed, with one positive and one negative. After appealing, I resubmitted the article to the same journal. The new review results showed that an additional reviewer was assigned, making a total of three reviewers. The previous two reviewers provided positive feedback, and the result from the third reviewer was also acceptable. I made revisions and submitted the article by the end of the same month.
2022.3.17: Accepted after second-round review.
Impression: Apart from the initial mistaken rejection, the overall experience was quite good. The difficulty of submission was not high, and the attitudes of the editors were also favorable. Especially when consulting with experienced colleagues about whether to confront the editorial department after receiving a mistaken review, they advised against it, as it usually doesn't yield much result. However, after I pointed out the issue with the reviewer, the editorial department still took it seriously and allowed me to resubmit, which was unexpected.