Advanced Energy Materials

2021.11.24 First submission
2021.12.23 Received review comments for the first submission, 3 major revisions, 1 rejection. The rejection was based on unreasonable comments from the reviewer who clearly did not read our work, as we addressed the mentioned issues in the main body of the paper. The editor ultimately rejected it. We are not satisfied and will appeal.
2022.01.20 First round of appeal, resubmitted, editor agreed to re-review.
2022.03.16 Received comments from the second round of review, 2 accepted, 1 minor revision, 1 rejection. The editor ultimately gave a major revision decision.
2022.03.22 Uploaded the revised manuscript for the second round.
2022.04.08 Received comments from the third round, 2 new reviewers joined, 2 accepted, 3 rejected. One of the rejecters claimed our work was nonsense and suggested we do some useful research without providing specific modification suggestions. The editor ultimately decided to transfer the paper.
2022.04.20 We are not satisfied and filed a second appeal. Thank you to editor Sai Kishore Ravi for giving us another opportunity for review!
2022.04.28 Received comments from the fourth round, one reviewer still insisted on rejecting the paper and provided some suggestions. However, we have already addressed these suggestions in the main body of the paper. The other three reviewers agreed to accept the paper. The editor gave a minor revision decision.
2022.05.19 Uploaded the revised manuscript for the fourth round.
2022.05.24 Accept

Posted on 2021.07.30, the research group submitted to AEM for the first time. Approximately 20 days later, we received the review comments from four reviewers. One of the reviewers, an unknown individual, expressed an indescribable malice and did not approve our submission. It is really difficult for an unknown group to publish an article. The other reviewers were very friendly, and their questions were not difficult to answer. We immediately started to conduct additional experiments and considered how to respond to the reviewers. After less than a month, we wrote a response of nearly 8000 words and decided to resubmit. We would like to thank our editor for giving us another chance. After almost 40 days, we received new review comments. After carefully addressing them, the article was finally accepted. Overall, the reviewers of AEM are extremely professional and rigorous. The questions they raised were meaningful and helped to improve our manuscript.