In the track system, has the third reviewer provided their feedback yet?

(0) 讚！ | SCI越多越好

Three reviewers have already been assigned, so it's likely that either they are not satisfied with it or the associate editor wants to reject the submission.

(0) 讚！ | px

Feeling like the editor rejected it because they couldn't find a third reviewer's opinion is a bit frustrating.

(0) 讚！ | SCI越多越好

All opinions are good, there are no rejected ones. There are also two very good opinions that suggest publication. I don't know what that means.

(0) 讚！ | px

How are the reviewers' comments? I am going through the same review process and still looking for a third reviewer...

(0) 讚！ | SCI越多越好

It's strange, this journal. The first submission was rejected without mentioning any formatting issues. The second submission was sent for review, and after receiving two opinions, it was sent to RRC. A few days later, it was UR, indicating that it had been sent to more reviewers. Ultimately, it was rejected, but only feedback from two reviewers was provided. The rejection email for the second submission indicated that it could be resubmitted, so I submitted it for the third time. This time, it was sent to three reviewers initially, and after RRC, it was UR again. In the end, it was rejected once more, with feedback from only three reviewers. The rejection came from the associate professor at Politecnico di Milano. It's unclear what the deal is with this journal.

(0) 讚！ | px

5.25 submit directly WE
5.25 under review submit 2+, accept 2+
Looking forward to the follow-up results.

(0) 讚！ | lucky an

5.27 Two reviewers have accepted the review. Does this journal still need three more reviewers?

(0) 讚！ | 科研民工2024

May I ask if you are currently busy?

(0) 讚！ | zcs

The stupid journal, for the first time, gave 14 template suggestions and said they welcome resubmission. Then after the second submission, waited for 24 days, and surprisingly rejected it with the reason of being unrelated to the theme, which is absolutely outrageous!!

(0) 讚！ | COKE

Is the third reviewer the one with the unfavorable opinion?

(0) 讚！ | Xiaofei Chen

3 weeks

(0) 讚！ | lucky an

The submission is appreciated, but it has not yet met the quality standards of IJMS in terms of analysis depth and presentation. If you are willing to improve, please address the comments provided and submit a revised version. 
EiC: Multiple submissions are not allowed, and the submission fees for IJMS are increasing, so please do not submit incomplete works.

(0) 讚！ | Sun25

Is the editor who didn't wait for the final edit a bad reviewer?

(0) 讚！ | Xiaofei Chen

We appreciate your support for the International Journal of Mechanical Sciences and look forward to receiving future submissions that meet our publication standards. Can the manuscript be resubmitted?

(0) 讚！ | 平城魏晋

In its current form, critical improvements to your research methodology are necessary to ensure that your results are properly substantiated and conclusions are fully supported, in accordance with current research standards. We urge you to consider ways to strengthen your methodologies and level of validation, so that future versions of this work can draw more substantial conclusions that will further advance our field of research.

(0) 讚！ | 平城魏晋

At International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, we are dedicated to assisting you in the process of publishing your work. This may involve giving feedback that the conclusions reached are premature and need further refinement before we can suggest peer review and publication.

(1) 讚！ | 平城魏晋

After the first round of revisions, how long does it usually take for the reviewer to provide feedback for the second round?

(0) 讚！ | 喜羊羊也爱猫

5.21 is still WD, this time it's really slow. It's been 24 days since the investment.

(0) 讚！ | 科研民工2024

20260313 RRC-2-2+-2+ (The second reviewer quickly gave feedback, anxiously waiting, asking other classmates may wait for three opinions depending on the direction);
20260326 Major R (Tears of joy, actually felt confident when seeing major revisions, feedback: both affirmed the novelty of the work, associate editor provided 14 formatting suggestions, a total of 28, very challenging and insightful, significantly improving the manuscript);
20260421 Revision (Spent half a month addressing the first reviewer's 5 suggestions, added more simulation and analysis, spent 1 week addressing the second reviewer's 9 suggestions, 3 days on the associate editor's formatting suggestions, spent 3 days writing the revision letter, maintaining a positive attitude throughout, fully accepting, the revision letter was 99 pages long, detailing every single modification to show the editor your effort);
20260427 UR-0-0-2
20260502 UR-1-2-2 (The editor sent the original two reviewers' responses, both happily accepted the invitation);
20260519 ACCEPT (Decision letter, only responses from the editor and second reviewer, both accepted, I suspect the first reviewer may not have provided feedback and directly jumped to the decision, no information on RRC-DIP in between, but also accepted);
The above is my experience, hope it helps everyone, wishing you all success in publishing papers and graduating smoothly.

(3) 讚！ | lijun cheng

20260109 Third submission - WE - major revision - The timeline update is as follows (Potential note: This is a completely new submission, just like the first time, all traces have been removed in the cover letter, following the first submission process, deepening the influence of Editor-in-Chief Marian Wiercigroch on the paper. This is a bonus point).
20260109 WE (will be WE on the day of submission or the next morning, very fast, and I suggest everyone to check the auspicious dates and Tuesday to Thursday mornings when submitting, there is metaphysics).
20260113 UR-0-1-2
20260209 UR-1-2-2+ (Potential note: encountered the Spring Festival, I thought there would be results soon, but the second reviewer did not give feedback for a long time. I speculate that after three weeks of waiting, the editor invited a new reviewer. Therefore, time was delayed here. Some lucky students may have their reviews completed during this period).

(2) 讚！ | lijun cheng

This is my first submission to the top of Area 1, drawing on the submission experience in the comments section. I hope it will be helpful to everyone.
20251227 First submission - WE - desk reject - Reason: definitely innovative, after the chief editor gave 14 formatting suggestions, it was considered necessary to improve from format to discussion depth to give the opportunity to resubmit the rejected paper (Potential note: resubmit but at least wait for half a month, there is a cooling-off period for the first rejection with 14 formatting suggestions);
20260107 Second submission - WE - desk reject - Reason: This is a major improvement, but please carefully check each point again to ensure that all my points are fully addressed, such as language still lacking, and other shortcomings. After completion, please resubmit without answering my questions and mark the manuscript. (Potential note: It is best to suggest in the cover letter when resubmitting a rejected paper to explain what changes have been made)

(5) 讚！ | lijun cheng

5.18 is still pending. This time it's a bit slow, it hasn't been submitted for review for 20 days.

(1) 讚！ | 科研民工2024

A little nervous about the 5-17 RRC 2+ 2+ 2+ meeting.

(0) 讚！ | lllx

5.15 is still "we", this kind of slower pace should have all been submitted for review, right?

(0) 讚！ | 科研民工2024