APPLIED INTELLIGENCE

Submitted at the end of February, preliminary review ended in early April, revised for one week, first review ended at the end of June, two reviewers, major revisions were made mainly in terms of writing style. Second round of review results returned at the end of August, the second reviewer did not understand the innovative points, believed that there were issues with the methodology and experimental section, so the innovative points were highlighted in the article and explained. The revisions were completed in one week and accepted in early October. Overall, the journal was relatively lenient in handling the article. It was easy to meet the requirements of the reviewers with careful revisions. However, one thing worth criticizing is the extremely slow review speed. My article originally did not require major changes, and I personally believe that the innovative points and experiments were quite sufficient. In fact, there were no major changes made during the revision process. Unexpectedly, it took a total of 8 months from start to finish, spanning three semesters, directly delaying the scholarship evaluation and indirectly affecting job applications (resulting in the inability to list published articles on resumes, making many research institutes hesitant to consider during campus recruitment). It can be said that it had a certain impact on my life. They say that delayed justice is not justice, and I feel that the delayed review result cannot be considered a satisfactory outcome either. It was difficult to bear, but at least it was eventually accepted. I hope that reviewers can review as quickly as possible, because you never know how your delays affect the lives of the authors. We are all struggling, so let's have more understanding for each other. For students who are in a hurry to graduate or apply for scholarships, if you want to submit to this journal, I personally suggest leaving at least 9 months of time to be more secure, after all, not everyone is lucky.

11.26 Return for major revisions, one reviewer approved it, while another reviewer felt that there were too many points of innovation, and each innovation was superficial. It is a kind of technical application rather than an innovative algorithm, and it is unclear which ones are my proposals and which ones are others' contributions that I introduced.
Revision: Use "proposed" and "introduced" to indicate my own proposals and others' contributions, respectively. Explain the problems I want to solve, and clarify how the proposed and introduced parts address these problems. Then, step by step, explain the derivation of the formulas I proposed to the reviewers, highlighting the novelty and importance of the formulas. The overall response should be around 5 pages.
11.29 Revised submission.
1.7 Accepted without further revisions.

Overall, the review process was somewhat slow, which affected my application for a PhD. By the time the results came out, the application deadlines for various universities had already passed. In a sense, it may have had an impact on my life. If someone is in a hurry to submit to this journal, I personally suggest setting aside six months to ten months for the review process because the speed of review really depends on luck. I have a friend who was accepted three days after major revisions (but his response was over forty pages long for a paper of only a few pages, so I guess he impressed the reviewer). Honestly, if it weren't for this friend, I would have been completely stressed during my revisions and didn't know what to do. I was already prepared to reject the paper and submit it elsewhere.

Please remember, your goal is acceptance, not to be anxious or even argue with the reviewers.

Overall, I highly recommend this journal, and I have learned a lot from it.