Construction and Building Materials

Overall, the civil engineering section of this journal is relatively easy to get published in. Some fellow colleagues in the laboratory have already published many articles.

This is my first time submitting, but I am still taking it seriously and want to live up to its reputation as a Q1 journal.

The submission progress is as follows:

[2021.06.13] Submitted

[2021.06.27] First expert review completed

[2021.07.05] Second expert review completed

[2021.08.04] Received feedback, made revisions, and was accepted. Given three months to make modifications. Both reviews were conducted by the aforementioned two experts. One expert had extremely positive comments, affirming the significance of the research and discussing specific issues. The other reviewer had a very negative attitude, almost saying that the entire paper, from theory and methodology to results, was incorrect. Therefore, during these three months, I addressed the specific points raised by the second expert, conducted additional experiments, and used the experimental results to refute their criticisms.

[2021.10.29] Submitted the revised paper. This time is a bit confusing because since the submission until today, it has been "With Editor," and I don't know if it has been sent for a second expert review.

[2021.11.15] Paper accepted, preparing for publication.

To summarize: The first review of CBM took less than two months and involved only two expert reviewers. As long as the two reviewers do not have simultaneous negative opinions, they should provide an opportunity for revisions. By honestly making revisions, it took less than a month from the second review to acceptance.

I would like to express my gratitude to Letpub for their assistance!

2023.2.21 Return the revised manuscript to the two reviewers of the first trial. One of them accepted the review and returned with agreement. The other reviewer has been refusing to review. After 21 days, the "Under review" date changed, indicating that the editor sent another invitation to the reviewer who did not accept the review, and also invited a new reviewer. The number of invitations changed from 2 to 2+, and the number of accepted reviews changed from 1 to 2+.
2023.3.21 Required reviews are complete.
2023.3.24 Revision (One of the additional reviewers provided a comment stating that the article has a weak point and needs to be strengthened. They provided four references, which are actually their own papers. However, the decision letter did not include the relevant reference information. We sent an email to the editor to inquire about the situation, and later the supervisor sent an email in English. The editor replied that the reviewer requested the citation of their paper, but they find this behavior distasteful and did not provide a link. They also mentioned that we do not need to cite it if it is not closely related.)
2023.3.31 Return of the revised manuscript.
2023.4.1 Accepted.