Are there any big shots like me? What's going on? It's been almost two weeks since the second review was sent back for revisions and we're still waiting.

(0) 讚！ | 球球了中一篇吧

Is Yaser Jararweh the editor?

(0) 讚！ | aaaaaccccc

Is Yaser Jararweh the editor?

(0) 讚！ | aaaaaccccc

Has anyone recently submitted a rework for the second review? Why has it been in the "waiting for examination" status for so long? I remember it used to be very quick.

(0) 讚！ | 球球了中一篇吧

It seems that your manuscript has been recently reviewed and has been accepted directly.

(0) 讚！ |

Yes, I also agree with the OP's call. The IPAM journal generally has authors review the manuscript. Some new manuscripts are rejected (after major revisions in the second review) and resubmitted multiple times, with opinions revised three or four times. In cases where the workload is sufficient, it is best to just give the AC directly. Endless revisions can easily lead to a retaliatory mindset, where if you don't let me in, I won't let you in. If this continues in a vicious cycle, there will be no solution. I recently reviewed a manuscript that was probably revised several times, with the response to the review being six or seven pages long. If there are no major issues, it is best to just give it to the AC.

(2) 讚！ | 十三月.

Can only one opinion editor also dip?

(0) 讚！ | 虫木小

It was written wrong, one editor from Japan and one editor from Jordan.

(0) 讚！ | XXXnnn

I have had similar experiences: a Japanese editor and a Polish editor. Both of these AEs like to find new reviewers for each round. If you submit a paper, you are likely to receive a revised manuscript for review. Be cautious when submitting to these editors. In addition, I also urge everyone to be lenient when reviewing resubmitted manuscripts in IPM (marked with an R), unless the work is truly terrible. It is not advisable to use GPT or other tools to generate a lot of comments and then give major revisions (I usually accept the paper once the author has fully addressed the concerns of other reviewers). AI-generated comments are often repetitive and likely to address issues that have already been resolved in the current round of revisions, which can unnecessarily prolong the review process and increase the risk of rejection.

(0) 讚！ | XXXnnn

Has your manuscript been submitted for review now?

(0) 讚！ | Hello

Submitted on February 26th, still waiting for a response.

(0) 讚！ | Hello

Are you submitting it for review now?

(0) 讚！ | Hello

Hello, the new Elsevier system does not allow for the selection of OA when submitting a manuscript? Is it only possible to determine this at the end?

(0) 讚！ | 无悔

The major revision was rejected, the previous reviewers had no issues, but a new set of reviewers were assigned. They asked a lot of questions that had already been addressed multiple times in the article and were clearly indicated. There was no solution, so the article was submitted elsewhere. It feels like a lifetime of being stuck in predatory journals, where the Polish deputy editor in Japan is just a figurehead. The article is not actually read, the feedback is just copied and pasted, and the conclusions are contradictory. *********

(0) 讚！ | la_vie

Submitted on April 8, 2025.
Four rounds of revisions were conducted during the process, with 2-3 new reviewers invited each time, and up to now, UR...

(0) 讚！ | bigbigpang

Have the recent edits not been approved yet? It has been in RRC for several days already... Please proceed with the second review or make minor corrections.

(0) 讚！ | API666

2025.10.24 Submitted
2025.10.24 Send back to author, editor-in-chief requested some revisions
2025.10.26 Resubmit
2025.11.11 Under review
2026.12.12 Major revision, two reviewers, one of whom is not appropriate for this article; subsequent contact with editor also unanswered
2026.1.8 Resubmit & With Editor
2026.1.26 Still in With Editor status, send reminder
2026.2.1 Under review 2-1-0 invited two reviewers for the first round
2026.2.3 Under review 2-1-1
2026.2.12 Under review 3-2-1
2026.2.15 Under review 5-3-1
2026.3.9 Reject Editor refused to accept for further Major revision

(0) 讚！ | kerberos

Has been rejected.

(0) 讚！ | MathWang714

Why is my article not being reviewed? It has been a month already!?!?!

(0) 讚！ | 一投就中包的

Correction, the submission acceptance took 7 and a half months.

(0) 讚！ | 数据挖掘机

The first submission was reviewed by two reviewers, and after revisions, three additional reviewers were added for the second submission. Fortunately, all reviewers accepted the paper. However, the editor-in-chief insisted on another round of reviews, stating that the paper would not be accepted without them. It was really frustrating.

(0) 讚！ | 数据挖掘机

I also experienced this before, changing reviewers for the second time in a year and still being asked for major revisions, only to be rejected in the end.

(0) 讚！ | letpubuser001

Timeline of Paper Submission and Review

Initial Submission and Formal Review (Late October - Early November)

10.30 - 11.4: After the initial submission, the paper went through a "reject and resubmit" process due to formatting issues. It was resubmitted on 11.4 after modifications.

First Review and Major Revision (Mid-December - Early January)

12.12: Paper under review.

12.22: Received major revision with 10 explanation points from 2 reviewers.

1.10 - 1.13: System error showed "Withdrawn," resolved as system issue/page timeout. Resubmitted on 1.13.

Second Review and Minor Revision (Mid to Late January)

1.14 - 1.25: Second review stage, with additional reviewer added on 1.19. Entered decision stage on 1.25.

1.27: Received minor revision, mainly addressing the additional reviewer's comments.

Third Review and Final Acceptance (Early February - March 1st)

2.2: Submitted minor revision.

2.3 - 2.26: Third review stage, with multiple system status changes.

3.1: Officially accepted! ?

(0) 讚！ | trew

We got it!

(0) 讚！ | Li Pan

Super efficient editor!
Extremely nice editor!
Very helpful reviewer!
Grateful for everything~~

(0) 讚！ | Li Pan