Three reviewers in the first round, peer review by junior colleagues, with more professional opinions. The paper was accepted after the second round of reviews, taking a total of five months. The process was a bit slow and the publication fee was a bit high, but it is still better compared to ACCESS and MDPI.

(1) 讚！ | 探际

Hello friend, may I ask how much is the layout fee for this journal approximately?

(0) 讚！ | D16

Is it possible for this journal to return to zone three? After paying to submit, it ended up in zone four. What a waste

(1) 讚！ | Ma Junyan

Overall, the speed is quite fast. The first review took one month, the second review for minor revisions took 14 days, and then it was accepted. There was one reviewer who kept talking non-stop, but I think that this kind of journal is unlikely to reject your submission, as they don't have many publications to begin with, and the publication fee is still expensive even after going open-access. So, there's no need to be too nervous when submitting to this journal. Considering the money, the editor will also treat your manuscript carefully.

(0) 讚！ | Carraway

In the first review, there were five reviewers, possibly because the innovation was not outstanding. The associate editor added two more reviewers for me. The fifth person only said a polite sentence, so it is equivalent to having only four reviewers.

(0) 讚！ | Carraway

2023.02  submit
2023.03  major revision
2023.04  accept

(0) 讚！ | Carraway

Successfully employed on October 1, 2022. Perhaps it is due to the fewer submissions now, the process was really fast! I hope the magazine continues to thrive and improve!

(0) 讚！ | 一剑飘香

2022.8.02 submit
2022.8.03 under review
2022.9.5 major revision
Three reviewers provided approximately a dozen comments. The first and third reviewers suggested numerous revisions to the article itself, requesting additional numerical results and analysis. The second reviewer asked two questions regarding technical issues.
2022.9.21 resubmission. Hoping for a smooth acceptance.

(4) 讚！ | 一剑飘香

8.08 Submission
8.30 Major revision
9.14 Resubmission after modification
9.20 Acceptance
There were three reviewers, and the majority of their suggestions were to add explanations to the equations and references. They also recommended adding explanations to some content. The third reviewer didn't provide many comments, while the first two each gave eight suggestions. The process went smoothly and quickly.

(2) 讚！ | re_wzx

Ran Ge is even more awesome, yyds.

(0) 讚！ | abcfdsg

Ming Ge is awesome, yyds.

(0) 讚！ | 一剑飘香

2022.7.15 pending decision
2022.7.15 accepted Four reviewers in the first round all expressed acceptance, but the fifth reviewer was nowhere to be found. These reviewers had many technical requirements, but they did not make me repeatedly revise minor details.

Overall, this submission process was quite tortuous. I thought I would have to make several more rounds of revisions, but the result was unexpected. Generally speaking, this journal is not easy to get into, as many people around me have been rejected. Based on my own experience combined with cases of people around me, the reviewers of this journal are usually very professional and to the point. The journal has a relatively high open access fee, and its annual publication volume has dropped to just over 100 articles in the past two years. However, it is worth acknowledging that the editorial department is indeed efficient.

(0) 讚！ | abcfdsg

4.7 Submission
6.14 Revision
6.28 Acceptance
My first SCI article, although the process was difficult, I am relieved that someone recognized it. Three reviewers, two of them gave positive opinions, while the other asked some general questions. The attitude of the editors and their handling speed were very fast.

(0) 讚！ | Doc.moonlight

2022.4.15 submit
2022.4.15 under review
2022.5.4 pending decision
2022.5.7 major revision 5 reviewers, one with a positive attitude, one with a negative opinion regarding innovation (but positive about the organization and writing of the article), three providing suggestions. A total of about 40 suggestions, quite professional, including some novel and valuable suggestions on theoretical aspects that I hadn't considered before.
2022.6.18 resubmit Analyzing the reviewers' comments requires strict analysis, and additionally, simulation and experimental data need to be supplemented, as well as derivation processes. There were quite a few comments, and I wrote a reply letter of 10,000 words, so it took a long time, delaying the submission.

(4) 讚！ | abcfdsg

Brother, you are that MCTA algorithm →_→.

(0) 讚！ | abcfdsg

The initial draft was submitted for review without any experiments. In order to be accepted in the end, it must include experiments.

(0) 讚！ | Lyw1995

Won't experiments be rejected directly by the associate editor at the beginning?

(0) 讚！ | abcfdsg

2021-8-14: Initial draft submission
2021-10-6: Supplementary experiment
2021-12-13: Resubmission
2022-3-6: Major revision (with an additional reviewer)
2022-3-11: Acceptance

(0) 讚！ | Lyw1995

Initial submission in October 2021 - Major revisions received in early December 2021 (given 6 weeks to make changes) - Reply on January 17, 2022 - Accepted directly on January 24, 2022 (exactly one week later).

There were a total of three reviewers, with a combined total of 20+ comments. Each comment was addressed individually in a response letter that spanned over 20 pages.

The first reviewer was positive, the second suggested significant revisions, and the third reviewer seemed to have not thoroughly read my article and provided vague comments. Their overall feedback was negative.

After the first round of revisions, I initially planned to make two or three more revisions. However, unexpectedly, the article was accepted directly, which made both myself and my advisor very happy.

I am sharing this for your reference. Keep up the good work!

(1) 讚！ | wq123321

Sorry, I made a mistake. It should have changed to three areas, and I estimate that there will be even fewer contributors!

(0) 讚！ | Dr Li

The speed is quite fast, but now it has become a second-tier journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. There will probably be fewer contributors in the future!

(0) 讚！ | Dr Li

Hello, do you have a template for submitting papers?

(0) 讚！ | 小锐

The journal is good, considered as a good journal in the field of electrical engineering. Some universities specifically recognize journals under IEEE Transactions and IET Journal Research, so I chose this journal. The review speed is good, with initial review taking two months, and after major revisions, the second review took one month for acceptance. The reviewers are meticulous in reviewing articles, it is impossible to pass through without explanation of the mechanism, the methods must be innovative and have practical value, and the journal has relatively high requirements for experiments. After the initial review, adding experiments and discussions resulted in an additional two pages. The only uncomfortable point is that it suddenly became open source, but there is no choice, it seems that open access for journals is a trend in the future.

(1) 讚！ | chiqunanhai

2020-4-28 Submission
2020-7-16 Major revision
2020-8-28 Minor revision
2020-10-12 Acceptance
2020-12-22 Final draft
2021-2-12 Publication

There were a total of four reviewers who provided comments. Two of them were very sharp and raised a lot of questions. One was more neutral and raised some questions. One was a mediator and asked some irrelevant questions.

During the second revision, because I only indirectly answered some questions, one of the reviewers insisted on a direct answer. In the end, I conducted experiments, provided data, and addressed the issue.

My research is focused on optimizing electrical structures. Since there were no outstanding points, I shifted my focus to natural optimization algorithms to achieve multi-objective optimization for electrical machines. Previously, I had been rejected by STRUCTURAL AND MULTIDISCIPLINARY OPTIMIZATION, which is also a good journal. Although it rejected my paper, it provided constructive feedback that greatly helped me in revising it.

I have concluded my graduate studies and I'm not particularly interested in the mechanical industry. I have moved on to work in chip IC design. I hope everyone has a bright future!

(5) 讚！ | qichiziwenfeng

I hit a wall many times before finding this journal. The review process is relatively fast. In the meantime, I sent emails to urge them and they all replied patiently and promptly. Very nice!

(1) 讚！ | qichiziwenfeng