AE said, "Wow, I'm also very surprised that he rejected this very unreasonable. The words were said, but there was no fair behavior. Meimei submitted the final decision, and the other party never replied to the messages again. Then we started urging for the draft, waiting to appeal. The editorial department also said, you can appeal but after SCE's final decision, dear. Okay, this wait lasted for more than a month, countless emails were sent in between, all of which were just us trying to make contact, saying things like 'please wait' and so on. It's funny, right? The editorial department couldn't contact their own SCE, he, tui. The most disgusting thing came last night, we sent an email to withdraw the draft, we can't afford to waste time. This morning! This SCE that has been invisible for so long! This idiot, replied to the email, saying oh sorry to have delayed you, I rejected it for you, to make it easier for you to submit elsewhere. I'll go to your Feng! Where have you been earlier, I urged you for a decision and you didn't give it, now that I want to withdraw the draft you rejected it for me? What kind of jerk are you? Disgusting. I advise everyone, if you don't have more than 6 months to spare, don't submit. If you want to experience such a disgusting revision process, go ahead."

(0) 讚！ | Guodong Du

Okay, the AE has come out and said that the reason for the rejection is because you didn't include this experiment, you have to include it, otherwise I will reject it.

Alright, no problem at all, for the sake of getting published, we will add it, we will pay attention to every detail. The first reviewer has already accepted it, great, things seem to be looking up.

Just when you think everything is going well, the third reviewer starts acting up again, not providing any further comments, and not responding to messages in the review form.

Then the AE added a fourth reviewer, which is reasonable, because the second reviewer rejected it, we understand. The fourth reviewer provided a dozen or so comments, no problem, we will make the changes.

It's worth mentioning that the AE is also giving suggestions, he doesn't seem like an AE, he seems more like a reviewer.

So far, we have made changes based on at least 60 or 70 comments, regardless of whether they are valid or contradictory, we have to make changes according to our own ideas to satisfy everyone, for the sake of getting published.

And here comes the twist, the third reviewer rejected it, citing an unchangeable ethical issue.

It's unbelievable, he was initially giving mild comments, but then he pulled out the big guns.

Isn't it funny? If there was an ethical issue, why didn't you mention it from the beginning?

(0) 讚！ | Guodong Du

The whole submission process is disgusting, I have never seen such a disgusting journal before. Submitted in February, got revision comments in March, three major revisions, the comments seemed fine at first, which was good, but that was just the beginning of a nightmare. On average, each reviewer had 10 comments, asking for changes here and there, no problem, we respect that, we made the changes diligently. We made all the necessary changes and responses, but when it came to things that were beyond reason or too detailed to be included in the experiment, we explained the reasons and circumstances politely, stating that the current experiment was sufficient to explain the situation based on the conventional practices in the field. We had expectations for this, thinking that if it was good, it would be accepted directly, if not, maybe a minor revision would be requested, but if it was really not acceptable, we would have to redo the experiment, what else could we do. Can you believe it? They rejected the paper outright, citing that there were major foundational errors that could not be corrected. Isn't that outrageous? This second reviewer really has a temper.

(0) 讚！ | Guodong Du

May I ask what is your research direction? Is this journal good or not? How much does it cost? Looking forward to your reply.

(0) 讚！ | maple2506

23 May 2025 Article accepted for publication.
15 May 2025 resubmitted the manuscript.
8 May 2025 resubmitted the manuscript.
21 Apr 2025 Major revision
12 Apr 2025 Peer Review
10 Apr 2025 Submit

(0) 讚！ | MeJohn

The experience is still very good.

(0) 讚！ | ZephyrLoo