Advanced Materials Interfaces

Submission date: December 2, 2021 (My first SCI submission, I wrote the paper by myself and it took me 4 months. I didn't know how it would turn out, but I saw that graduation was approaching, so I mustered up the courage to send it to my supervisor.
My supervisor said I could submit it to a tier 2 journal, so I suggested Wiley's AMI.
On January 17, 2022, I checked and it was actually accepted. The submission date displayed was January 17, and the review comments took a total of 45 days.
Editor's comments: Major revision, 20 days. Reviewer 2 found my paper interesting and novel, and gave me three or four suggestions for revisions. Reviewer 3 provided more than ten suggestions. Most of their comments pointed out small errors in the article (because I was too lazy to make changes after writing it and didn't ask anyone to proofread, so this issue indeed exists, and I know it myself).
On February 3, 2022, which was the third day of the lunar calendar, I submitted my response to the comments. In a small incident during the corresponding author confirmation stage, I accidentally clicked "decline to revise" and had to click it again to be able to make revisions. Surprisingly, I was still able to upload files. On February 5, 2022, the editor sent an email asking about the situation, and I explained that I clicked wrongly.
On February 9, 2022, when I logged into the submission system, I saw that it was accepted. The accompanying response only had feedback from reviewer 2, who said the article is very meaningful and recommended acceptance.)

I submitted to AOM on December 20th and it took about ten days for the review. However, it was rejected. I suggested transferring the submission to AM interfaces and reluctantly did so on January 4th. On February 17th, I received the first review result, which allowed me ten days to make revisions. After submitting it again on the 27th, I lost patience after half a month of constantly seeing "under consideration" and criticizing this journal (thinking back now, it's quite amusing). On March 16th, I received a message. The efficiency was relatively high, whether it was due to my impatience or finding it slow. The reviewers provided very professional questions, but the overall evaluation was positive, so the acceptance was expected. The content is rich, and the chances of this innovative work being accepted are quite high. I am from a small group and it's frustrating that I can't make it to the top tier, but I will keep trying.