IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY

After revising and submitting an article in early May this year, I have submitted two more articles in the past seven months. Each article took less than two months, with results coming out in about 50 days. One of the articles received preferences from five reviewers, and the acceptance notice was issued in about three weeks after the second review. Recently, the first review result for this article just came out, with three reviewers having positive opinions and one having a negative opinion. In general, when submitting these articles, there doesn't seem to be much difference between major and minor revisions. As long as there is a chance for a second review, the feedback is usually positive. However, even the so-called minor revisions can be quite challenging and require careful editing for nearly a month. For articles that are not given a chance for a second review, they are generally either rejected or required to be resubmitted after rejection. I have not experienced the workload of resubmitting after rejection. Recently, this submission process was delayed by one month due to issues with image formatting.... I am nervous, but hopefully everything will turn out fine. I will diligently revise the article before New Year's Day!

My second review comments have come back, with four out of five reviewers agreeing, but one still has a lot of issues (strongly negative, incorrect methodology, incorrect theoretical basis, and the research problem is deemed meaningless). The editor still gave a chance for revision. Ten days ago, I uploaded the revised manuscript and a point-to-point response to that reviewer. It is now in the third review. However, it has been more than 10 days, and it is still "with editor" (after the first review, the revised manuscript and reviewer comments were uploaded, and it was with the reviewer on the second day; the entire second review took about 40 days). How long does the third review usually take? I feel that the editor is still interested in the article; otherwise, they wouldn't have given a chance for revision. However, I cannot convince that reviewer, as they believe the research problem is meaningless. I'm not sure what the outcome will be in this situation. It's the first time I've encountered a situation where four reviewers agree and one completely disagrees.