Frontiers in Immunology

The magazine needs to be modified according to the provided template, and there is no need to write a Cover Letter. However, a paragraph about contributions to the field should be written for the Editor's reference. It has been 9 days since the submission, and it is currently in the "Editor assignment" status. Suddenly, on a certain Saturday morning, an email was received stating that the first Reviewer's comments were available to view on the system interface. It was discovered that the Editor had also been assigned and the first Reviewer had completed their review. I speculate that after the manuscript was submitted, the Editor had already made arrangements and selected the Reviewer, but the Editor did not confirm it on the system. An email notification is sent for each Reviewer's comments. My article has two Reviewers. The Editor's response on the system was that both he and the Reviewer believe it can be published, but further revisions are needed. This magazine (or possibly the Frontier series) filled out the response on the system, but it is not possible to attach images on the system, so providing reference data and supplementary information may be inconvenient (no other option to upload attachments was seen). After replying to the revision, the Editor quickly responded saying that the article has been accepted. From submission to acceptance, it took a total of about 15 days, which is considered very fast. However, we have not received the PDF proof version yet. Keep going, and I hope everyone's submissions go smoothly!

Non-tumor disease molecular mechanisms. Choose a topic section with fewer submissions. The editor is very friendly.
There are three reviewers in total. The first reviewer agrees to accept it directly and provides several suggestions, which are beneficial.
The second reviewer provides 7 modification suggestions, and after making the modifications, they accept it. Among them, one suggestion requires experimental conditions that are currently not available. After explaining, they agree.
The third reviewer has a high academic level and reviews it meticulously, providing a total of 18 modification suggestions. Some of the suggestions are insightful, and we explain and modify the manuscript in detail. Some of the suggestions are overly picky, and we feel that the content they requested is different from the majority of the current paper handling methods, so we provide counterarguments. As a result, they promptly reject it! Don't be stubborn with reviewers.
Overall, the process from submission to acceptance went smoothly. It has been published now.