Hi guys, may I ask for your opinions on "expanding and updating the literature review in order to better link with current work in the field of mechanical science; for papers like this, we expect to critically discuss no fewer than 80 journal papers, including 25 recent papers (2023/24->). Do not cite textbooks or manuals." Does the term "manuals" in this context include various industry standards, such as AASHO LRFD bridge design specifications, GB/T 50081-2019, ASTM D7205, etc.?

(0) 讚！ | Timeless ZL

What documents should be included when submitting LaTeX? Do other cls, sty, and bst files need to be embedded in the tex file, or should they be submitted as separate files?

(0) 讚！ | 嘻哈fo

Just submitted the file for the first time, it was too large, so I resubmitted it (within less than a day of the first submission). This is the second time, and it has been three days since the first submission.

(1) 讚！ | wangyans

I have just submitted my contribution as well, we can communicate and exchange ideas together.

(0) 讚！ | 阿布321

If you don't understand, please ask. I would like to inquire about submitting a latex manuscript for the first time. The journal's homepage requires the submission of the .tex main file, .bib references, and source files for figures and tables. When I was writing the latex document, I did not embed the cls, sty, and bst files into the main tex document. Can I submit the cls, sty, and bst files separately when submitting? In other words, the final submission would include: tex, cls, sty, bst, bib, Figs. Could experienced colleagues who have already submitted manuscripts please explain this to me? Thank you!

(0) 讚！ | 嘻哈fo

I submitted directly for review on March 4th, and the two reviewers accepted the review on the 9th, but it hasn't been completed yet.

(0) 讚！ | Accept停不下来

Additionally, I would like to respond to the previous comment and provide some further information. I did not see the dip stage. Regarding the formatting, during my initial submission, the senior editor provided me with a revised version of my manuscript for formatting. After the review process, in addition to feedback from three reviewers, Associate Editor Professor Marcelo Savi also gave me 14 formatting suggestions, 90% of which were repetitive of the senior editor's suggestions. Therefore, for those who did not have the opportunity to make formatting changes before submission, do not worry, as you will likely need to make changes after review. You can refer to articles in the journal, as they all follow the same formatting guidelines. Due to the large amount of text, I will not paste it below. Best wishes to all for a successful submission.

(0) 讚！ | 西瓜

On April 4th, the first revision was returned for major revisions. Reviewer 1 raised 13 key questions that struck at the heart of the matter. Reviewer 2 had three comments and suggested acceptance. Reviewer 3 stated that I needed to answer 7 questions before they could agree to accept. I found the questions raised by the reviewers to be professional and relevant to my research area, and I understood them well.

On March 20th, the revised manuscript was sent back. On the same day, one reviewer completed the review.

On the night of March 26th, another reviewer completed their review.

On the morning of March 27th, the manuscript was directly accepted. Upon reviewing the decision letter, it was noted that the second reviewer did not provide comments, while the first and third reviewers who had raised many questions had agreed to publication.

In conclusion, I hope my experience can help others. I wish everyone success in getting their articles accepted on the first attempt. The total submission period was approximately 2 months and 5 days.

(0) 讚！ | 西瓜

In my first review, the editor also provided more than 10 formatting suggestions, which I carefully revised and submitted. However, two days later, they claimed that I had not made any changes according to their requirements. They threatened to reject my submission if I did not improve. I have no idea how to proceed with the revisions, as I thought I had already followed their suggestions diligently. How else should I make changes?

(0) 讚！ | Yang Leiyu

The second review had three reviewers: one agreed to accept, one suggested revisions, and one pointed out problems with the innovation and recommended rejection. The manuscript was rejected after a change in the editorial responsibilities.

(0) 讚！ | Nixi

On March 22, 2025, two reviewers have completed their reviews, and we are waiting for the final reviewer. The status first changed to "rrc" and then to "ur." What is going on? Can anyone who understands explain? Feeling nervous.

On March 23, 2025, all three reviewers have completed their reviews, and the status has changed back to "rrc." Feeling tense, success or failure hinges on this moment. Please, editor, be lenient.

On March 24, 2025, minor revisions are required. All three reviewers have recommended publication, but the editor has pointed out a few minor formatting issues (improving the conclusion, changing the font of the figure captions, moving the formula derivation to the appendix, and optimizing the language). Two weeks have been given for revisions.

(0) 讚！ | 快乐打工人

Submitted on January 12, 2025 for review on the same day.
Major revision on February 6, 2025.
Revision submitted on March 21, 2025, with a two-week extension applied before submission.
Accepted for publication on March 23, 2025.

There were four reviewers in the first round, three positive and one negative. The editor provided 10 comments, resulting in a significant amount of revisions. In the second round, only one reviewer responded and agreed to accept the paper, leading to the editor's decision to accept it.

Both the editor and reviewers pointed out the need to strengthen the discussion on contribution and novelty, as the journal seems to emphasize these aspects. Any innovations should be highlighted more explicitly. They also advised increasing the information density in the figures, avoiding situations where one graph only contains one or two lines.

Overall, both the editor and reviewers worked quickly. Some reviewers were more professional and provided detailed feedback, which significantly helped improve the quality of the paper.

(1) 讚！ | ciweige76

Yes, the decision-making process will not last too long.

(0) 讚！ | 蔡小明

OP, what is the current status?

(0) 讚！ | 田俊杰

I submitted my manuscript with the same opinions, but after revising it and resubmitting, it was rejected directly.

(0) 讚！ | justaman

Bro, what's going on with you now? My manuscript was originally being handled by the associate editor Wang Quan, but now for the second review, two new reviewers have been invited, and the process has changed from RRC to DIP. Have you had this kind of experience in the submission process before?

(0) 讚！ | Nixi

The image becomes unclear when it is reduced to 5 meters. I have uploaded a PDF file containing all high-resolution images as supplementary material, and provided explanations in the main text.

(0) 讚！ | 老桥

I haven't been paying attention to the dip stage, it should be coming to an end soon. Just wait patiently for the results.

(0) 讚！ | 老桥

Is the image still clear when it is reduced to 5 MB? How do you reduce the file size?

(0) 讚！ | easyy

Excuse me, have you encountered the dip stage during the submission process, bro?

(0) 讚！ | Nixi

Excuse me, brother, have you experienced the dip stage in the submission process? My first editor is Wang Quan, and now after the second review by RRC, there was a dip.

(0) 讚！ | Nixi

Excuse me, brother, have you experienced the "dip" stage in the submission process? My first-round editor is Wang Quan, and now after the second round of review by RRC, there was a dip. I want to ask if you have experienced this stage?

(0) 讚！ | Nixi

Excuse me, have you encountered the "dip" stage during the submission process? My first editor is Wang Quan, and now after the second review by rrc, there was a dip. I wanted to ask if you have experienced this stage as well.

(0) 讚！ | Nixi

Have you encountered the dip process during the submission to IJMS? The second review dip is really nerve-wracking.

(0) 讚！ | Nixi

The speed of the journal in mechanics has been quite fast, and it has been improving in recent years. This is intuitively reflected in the fact that there are more and more meaningful revision suggestions from the reviewers, all of whom are very professional. Although there is still a bit of complaint about the tedious formatting changes, it is understandable that the chief editor wants to create a unique style for the journal.

(0) 讚！ | chaos and bifurcation