WEAR

2022-01-11 Submitted.
2022-02-16 Rejected, recommended resubmission, provided 10 questions (unclear image, unclear meaning, need to add content, etc.).
2022-03-08 Resubmitted.
2022-04-09 Under review (editors carefully reviewed for a month before sending for external review).
2022-05-31 Major revision, two reviewers (8+20 questions).
2022-07-02 Received major revision materials (modified over 20 pages of A4 paper).
2022-07-08 Minor revision.
2022-07-29 Accepted.
A prestigious journal with strict requirements and long review time, which has high demands for article writing and innovation. It is a top journal in the field of wear. The reviewers are rigorous and provided many professional and constructive comments or suggestions during the review process.
During the minor revision, the reviewer mentioned: For the next work, make some new contributions to tool wear in high-temperature alloy processing along this line.
Through the process of identifying problems, conducting experiments, testing samples, analyzing and summarizing experimental results, becoming familiar with the content, style, and format of the journal, writing the initial draft, revising, and submitting, I have gradually developed skills in approaching problems from a comprehensive perspective.
The reviewers are likely experienced experts in the same field, and it is an honor to receive their review comments. I am grateful to the journal for providing a broad platform for international communication.

2021-6-11/2021-6-28, the editor raised more than 10 questions, refused to proceed, suggested to resubmit.
2021-7-7/2021-7-8, the editor raised a few more questions, did not understand the first set of questions, rejected the submission, suggested to resubmit.
2021-7-12/2021-9-16, submitted for review, two reviewers, 30-40 questions, may require major revisions, rejected the submission, suggested to resubmit.
2021-11-16/2022-2-14, revised and resubmitted, accepted directly (although some issues could not be resolved and the reviewers raised them again, but the editor accepted it directly); decision in process for a whole week, slightly slow efficiency.
It has been a rollercoaster ride, the review process has indeed been long; the editor's direction is aligned with mine, and they raised many questions in the first two rounds, giving multiple opportunities for resubmission; the journal is rigorous, the editor is meticulous, and the questions asked are very detailed; the reviewers are rigorous, essentially polishing the entire manuscript, making my revisions appear in red throughout (handwritten PDF version).