Water

Garbage journal. The first time I submitted it, my cross-references were messed up and I could still send it to the reviewers. The two reviewers couldn't see the figure numbers, all they saw were missing citations. How can such a large number of missing citations not be visible? Editor, take a look. Asked to resubmit, wasted a month. After resubmission, added another reviewer. A month later, received feedback, reviewer 2 agreed to accept, reviewer 1 asked for detailed information on PIV, and reviewer 3 asked to change the introduction. Ten days given for revision. After revising, received second review results in five days, reviewer 3 changed the language, reviewer 1 said my PIV processing method was incorrect, the processing window was too large, not meeting the quarter rule, but this rule only limits the minimum processing window and does not limit the maximum. Presented evidence to prove that strictly following the rule does not yield good processing results. Someone cited a larger processing window in their references, resulting in reduced error. Five days given, still asked to revise the language. Their language editing service takes a standard 5 days, or 1 day for urgent cases. It has been 5 days since I submitted my feedback, sent an email one day in advance asking if the editor could extend the deadline, but no reply. On the last day, I could only submit the revised version. Resulted in rejection after almost a month of delay, the reason for rejection was agreeing with reviewer 1's feedback, but the latest feedback from reviewer 1 was not even in the system. No modification suggestions were made to the main body of the article from beginning to end, the reviewers were half-hearted, and the editor was even worse, clearly because I didn't request urgent language editing. Garbage journal, I hope you get kicked out of SCI soon.

2022.1.18 with editor
2022.1.31 major revision
2022.2.9 minor revision
2022.2.11 acceptance

The article is generally innovative, using methods from managerial economics. Therefore, based on the recommendation of the external reviewers, the editor sent it to experts in econometrics for review. They provided many valuable suggestions, and it is evident that the article has become much richer in theory without changing the methods used for calculations.

Another external reviewer made very detailed revisions and provided me with numerous references to study (not for citation, but purely for knowledge dissemination. Thank you).

This article was submitted to two second-tier journals in 2021 and was rejected after review both times. One of the rejections was even arbitrated by the editor. It is regrettable that it was still rejected (still grateful to JCP for providing constructive revision suggestions).

With graduation approaching and limited time, publishing in Water is still the most cost-effective option. It is a JCR2-Q3 journal with a citescore of 3.7.

This is the second article published on Water, and it is also my first article that I have put all my efforts into.