Energy & Environmental Science

2023.01.09 submitted
2023.01.17 in peer review
2023.02.28 Reminder for submission.
2023.03.01 One day after the reminder, the review comments were sent. Two positive and one negative comments. The editor requested a major revision and a prompt response. At the same time, the editor explained the slow review process was because initially there were two reviewers with conflicting opinions, so a third senior reviewer was assigned. The third reviewer provided minor revisions and also refuted the rejection comments from the second reviewer (it appeared that the rejection reasons from the second reviewer were not very professional and raised doubts about their expertise in our field).
2023.03.14 The editor sent an email requesting a prompt response to the review comments.
2023.03.18 Submission of the review response.
2023.04.03 Accepted. The acceptance letter indicated that it seems the editor did not directly send the review response to the reviewer who initially rejected the paper (or did not adopt the final opinion of that reviewer).

2022.8.5 submitted
2022.8.15 in peer review
2022.10.14 major revision
2022.12.31 revision submitted
2023.02.22 accept
2023.3.15 online

The first round of review took three rounds with five reviewers. There were really a lot of reviewers, constantly switching between "in peer review" and "with editor", which was nerve-wracking. Fortunately, there were no rejections. The editor requested major revisions but only gave us 10 days to conduct additional experiments. We realized we couldn't complete the experiments in time, so we asked for an additional three months for major revisions. The second round of review also took a long time. The editor sent an email explaining that two reviewers had not responded, so the editor decided to accept the paper directly. The whole process was quite lengthy. Generally, articles on EES (Electronic Editorial System) don't take this long. It was considered an atypical long duration.