IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters

Second GRSL article, submitted one month after the first article.
Submitted on May 23rd.
Received first review on July 10th, with two reviewers. The first reviewer had 6 questions, and the second reviewer had 12 questions. Requested a one-week extension to make revisions.
Revised on August 4th.
Received second review on August 24th. The first reviewer had one lingering question, and the second reviewer raised three additional questions. They also delved into four more questions regarding our previous responses. They suggested that we improve the writing, and the editor also recommended the same. They also asked for proof of the improvements. Helplessly, we made the necessary improvements. Although the second reviewer had many questions, they were clear and guided us on how to make the modifications. The first reviewer's question was vague, and although their attitude seemed good, we still took their question seriously and replied carefully.
Revised on August 31st.
Received feedback on September 8th. The second reviewer was satisfied with our response. The first reviewer had a strong attitude and insisted on their viewpoint. Unfortunately, our manuscript was rejected and had to be resubmitted. (According to our field of submission, the first reviewer did not consider a factor that others mentioned, but they insisted we consider it.) There was no other choice but to redo the experiments.
Resubmitted on September 13th.
Finally accepted on October 7th. Despite the twists and turns, the outcome was still good.

2021.03.16 submission;
2021.04.27 feedback received, revisions suggested.
2021.05.13 revised;
2021.06.12 feedback received, minor revisions suggested.
2021.06.29 revised;
2021.07.19 accepted.
Before the new year, I was rejected by TGRS after two months, so I submitted to GRSL.
(1) There were two reviewers, one of whom was an expert in TGRS. They raised two questions, and I explained them in several pages. After making the revisions, they directly congratulated me.
(2) The second expert was very meticulous. In the first round of revisions, I missed one issue because I couldn't find similar references. Then, in the second round, they provided me with a list of relevant literature, including specific formula numbers. The paper was initially submitted after proofreading, so there were no grammar issues. After the first round of revisions, there were a few grammar problems pointed out by the expert.
(3) The (associate) editor-in-chief can review. After my revisions, the associate editor added some comments for the expert, but I didn't see the specific suggestions.
A diligent reviewer indeed provides great help to authors. This is something that Chinese people generally seldom do. I hope that in the future, when reviewing papers, everyone can be more serious. After all, writing articles is not easy for anyone, but poorly written articles should be rejected.