STRUCTURAL HEALTH MONITORING-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

The journal has a great reputation. However, the feeling is not good, as it was initially rejected. Furthermore, the reviewer's comments are very unreasonable. The reviewer seems to not understand my method and always speaks from his own perspective. Perhaps his understanding does not align with what I intended to do. Moreover, it is clear that he did not thoroughly read my article. There are many mistakes in his comments. One of my figures is used for comparison, so it is not meant to show any effects. Yet, the reviewer criticized the effectiveness of this figure. This figure is specifically used for comparison, so it is certain that nothing can be observed from it. The reviewer obviously did not read my article and just glanced at the figure before randomly writing this reason. There are a total of five comments, and two of them are unreasonable. The others express a lack of trust in the foundation of my theory.

2022/11/03 submitted
2023/1/14 major revision
2023/1/20 resubmitted
2023/2/15 rejected
Two reviewers, one with a better attitude, the other constantly focusing on my parameter issues. They claimed that my parameters were obtained through experiments without theoretical analysis. Maybe because it was my first submission, the reviewer's response letter was not clear. I made minimal revisions at that time and explained a lot to the reviewers. Unfortunately, it took more than three months. Today, I am re-submitting to JVC in hopes of acceptance.