SEPARATION AND PURIFICATION TECHNOLOGY

After being submitted on January 7th, there were four changes in the dates before the final editor gave approval.

There were four reviewers:
The first reviewer was the same person who initially rejected it. He raised many objections, but after discussing with my mentor, the teacher suggested countering his arguments with citations. As a result, about two-thirds of the first reviewer's comments were rejected.
The second and third reviewers recommended acceptance directly, with one of them being the same expert who provided feedback during the first submission.
The fourth reviewer raised eight questions and requested additional data. Based on the reviewer's suggestions, the highlights were modified. I am very grateful for the reviewer's input. They also mentioned language issues, so I sought assistance from the same editing agency for further polishing.
The revised manuscript was resubmitted to the journal ten days later, and acceptance came after approximately two weeks.
At last, the first-authored paper during my doctoral period has finally been settled. I hope to continue working hard and wish all researchers good luck and a combination of skill and luck.
As a small piece of advice, if a reviewer repeatedly raises objections without good intentions and it is clear they are nitpicking, it is important to boldly counter their arguments. (During the third submission, the editor did not involve the first reviewer, indicating that the editor did not value their opinions much. Our teacher said it was a clash of academic perspectives and there was no need to blindly cater to the reviewers.)

The text translates to:

The focus is on the application of advanced oxidation technology in complex water bodies. After considering WR/CEJ/JHM rejections, SPT was also not very confident in my heart.
Regarding the speed, first of all, I commend the speed of the review process, with results in just over a month. The reviewers' comments were very professional, raising relevant questions within the field, and after spending seven to eight days making revisions and responding, the proof format was then accepted and published.
Regarding the journal's ranking, during the trial period of the upgraded version by the Chinese Academy of Sciences from 2019 to 2022, it has consistently been classified as a first-tier journal. This confirms the quality of this well-established journal with an annual publication volume of over 1400 articles. After all, from 2022 onwards, only the upgraded version will be considered for journal rankings, and the basic version will no longer exist.
Regarding the quality, in the field of Engineering Technology, particularly in the area of wastewater treatment, this journal is of high quality, second only to WR/CEJ/JHM. I hope to receive more excellent papers in the future to gradually increase the influence of the journal!