Ranpii 2023-08-01

Finally accepted, it was really not easy. The reviewer was very serious and professional, and brought up the issues that I originally wanted to avoid discussing. Editor Khan was very responsible and efficiently handled the manuscript. After experiencing one rejection and resubmission, one major revision, and one minor revision, it was finally accepted.

2023/3/24 Submission
2023/3/26 Editor's response, rejected and asked for resubmission, provided one week for revisions
2023/3/31 Returned after making changes
2023/4/1 Submitted for review
2023/4/20 Review comments returned, requiring major revision and additional experiments, but only gave one month for revisions. Worried about not having enough time, therefore requested an additional two weeks for revisions.
2023/5/27 Submitted after revisions
2023/5/28 Reviewed again
2023/6/23 Review comments returned, accepted after minor revisions, only one reviewer raised an issue
2023/7/3 Submitted after revisions
2023/7/5 Reviewed again
2023/7/16 Accepted Orz

科研人哇 2023-03-03

Finally, I experienced being published in a top journal. The peer reviewers were very professional. I encountered experts in simulation and crystallography experiments. After two rounds of major revisions and one round of minor revisions, the article was reviewed by five experts. One of the simulation experts was particularly stringent in their requirements, which greatly improved the overall quality of the article.

Special thanks to Professor Khan.

Submission process:
2022-09-1: Submission
2022-10-1: Major revision, three months deadline
2022-11-13: Submission
2022-12-14: Major revision, one month deadline
2023-02-03: Submission
2023-02-11: Minor revision, two weeks deadline
2023-02-15: Submission
2023-03-02: Accepted

luchao 2022-12-28

Is it a direct hiring, to be directly hired after being reviewed by the reviewer? Or is it directly hired by the editor? How long does it take for the "Decision in process"?

ewqewe 2022-09-08

Do you have a model? I don't have a model. The second reviewer refuses to accept it, but the first one accepts it. Khan refuses to accept it.

搅局的圣徒 2022-08-14

Congratulations! ???

J.T. Fan 2022-08-06

The reviewers were all very professional, and after two rounds of revisions, the overall quality of the article has indeed been improved.
Many thanks to Professor Akhtar Khan, the editor-in-chief, for the quick review process and fast decision.
Wishing the International Journal of Publishing (IJP) continued success, and may all the authors who submit their work excel!

Submission Process:
May 13, 2022: Submission
June 14, 2022: Major revision, one-month deadline
July 13, 2022: Submission
July 22, 2022: Major revision, two-week deadline
July 30, 2022: Submission
August 4, 2022: Acceptance

搅局的圣徒 2022-05-11

Added you as a friend, need to go through a process before being able to send private messages!

J.T. Fan 2022-05-07

Hello! I have encountered the same problem as you. Can I ask you for advice? Thank you.

搅局的圣徒 2022-03-28

Dec 10, 2021 Submitted to Journal
Returned on the same day, advised to update with the latest research developments in the field, provided submission history to the editor's email, and recommended 6 IJP reviewers.
Dec 11, 2021 Submitted to journal
Dec 12, 2021 With Editor
Dec 13, 2021 Under Review
Jan 14, 2022 Required Reviews Complete
Jan 15, 2022 Major Revision
4 reviewers: #1 Minor revision, #2 Acceptance, #3 Rejection, #4 Major revision, editor chose major revision.
Mar 12, 2022 With Editor
Mar 12, 2022 Under Review
Mar 24, 2022 Required Reviews Complete
Mar 25, 2022 Minor Revision
Introduced a 5th reviewer, reviewers #1, #3, and #4 agreed to accept.
Mar 27, 2022 With Editor
Mar 27, 2022 Under Review
Mar 28, 2022 Accept
Take it seriously, respond carefully, and try your best to do well.

Copy 2021-01-14

Received at Editorial Office
15 Jul 2020
Article revised
31 Dec 2020
Article accepted for publication
3 Jan 2021

The process of conducting experiments and writing the article took a year and a half, and it took 5-6 weeks to receive the first review after submission.

The expert opinions were very professional and detailed, indicating that they were experts in the field. One reviewer believed that the article did not address common issues and gave a somewhat negative comment. Fortunately, the editor provided an opportunity for extensive major revision. A fourth reviewer was added during the second review, and their evaluation was relatively positive.

The entire submission process was quite challenging, but going through two rounds of reviews did result in many valuable insights.