Submission Process:
2024.5.21 Submitted
2024.5.22 Returned, requested to revise with latest literature and reviewers
2024.5.23 Revised, under review
2024.6.15 Invited 13 reviewers, accepted 3 reviewers, unknown results

It's been almost a month, why haven't I received the results yet? I've seen others get their IJP reviews back in half to a month. Praying for a good outcome

(0) 讚！ | lzs625

How long does it take for RRC to return feedback? It has been four days and my RRC has not changed, with the date changing once during this period

(0) 讚！ | Accept停不下来

Submitted on 15th November 2023 and returned on 21st November 2023 for the addition of the latest literature in the field and recommended 6 reviewers from different regions for the IJP journal. One week given. 
Resubmitted on 25th November 2023, under review. Sent to 36 reviewers, 6 accepted.
One-month revision period starting from 25th December 2023. Major revision required, 6 reviewers pointed out format issues and requested additional experiments.
Reviewer comments received on 30th January 2024. 
Major revision requested on 10th February 2024. 5 reviewers assigned, one-month revision period, in-depth questions raised.
Submitted on 10th March 2024, under review.
Under review on 10th April 2024
Minor revision requested on 29th April 2024, 2 reviewers assigned, one-month revision period, in-depth questions raised.
Submitted on 13th May 2024, under review.
Accepted on 16th May 2024

(0) 讚！ | 我的未来不是梦

Hello, may I ask if you have rearranged your introduction? I have also encountered this issue

(0) 讚！ | wang3118

The speed of review by the editors of IJP is first-rate, but it's hard to please the reviewers, they give no face at all. IJP is a good journal, but not suitable for ordinary people or small research groups, hahaha

(1) 讚！ | newtime

The editor did a great job, very fair and impartial. However, the reviewers were really hard to please. Out of the three assigned reviewers, only one provided constructive criticism, while the other two simply rejected the paper without any valid reasons. Their comments were quite harsh. The quality of the article was not as bad as they made it seem. Even when the paper was eventually accepted by a top journal, the reviewers' negative feedback was really hurtful and unpleasant

(0) 讚！ | xiaochen96

Submitted on 19th February 2024, returned on 21st February 2024. Added the latest field journal literature and recommended six reviewers from different regions for IJP journal. One week turnaround.
Resubmitted on 23rd February 2024.
Under review on 24th February 2024. Sent to 41 reviewers, 10 accepted the review.
Reviewers reviewed in succession by 8th March 2024, status changed to RRC. Reviewers continue to complete throughout the following period.
Major revision on 17th March 2024. 8 reviewers, one month for revisions and additional experiments.
Submitted on 13th April 2024.
Under review on 14th April 2024.
Minor revision on 22nd April 2024. 2 reviewers provided minor issues.
Submitted on 25th April 2024.
Under review on 26th April 2024.
Accepted on 27th April 2024

(0) 讚！ | Ning

We originally couldn't guess who it was, but after discussing with colleagues, we thought it might be those few people from a certain group, because it has always been like this. So we blocked those people on CL, and in the next round, there was no more biased reviewer, which seems to have had an effect

(0) 讚！ | 钟灵毓秀

Thank you, but I also can't figure out which group of people maliciously rejected the submission, wrote a detailed cover letter to the editor, mentioned bias among the reviewers, unprofessional questions raised, but all of these were completely ignored. Sigh

(0) 讚！ | 大宝贝666

Got it, thanks for clarifying, brother. I will pay more attention to these when I have the chance to try this journal again in the future

(0) 讚！ | 雪落你看不见

We have also encountered this situation at the beginning, with painful lessons. The main reason is that we did not fully understand the requirements of ijp editors. It is necessary to strictly adhere to several points: 1 recommended reviewers from six different countries on different continents, two each from Asia, Europe, and North America; 2 recommended experts must have published many articles on ijp and be directly related to the proposed submission topic; 3 unless necessary, try to use articles from the past ten years or even the past five years, at least from journals with a ranking of two or higher or are well-known in the field; 4 ijp articles should be well cited, this is the implication ?. If any of the four points are missing, it is possible to be asked to make modifications before resubmitting, but then be told that the innovation is not enough. Asking for modifications in the first place means that the editor still recognizes a certain level of innovation, but if you don't strictly follow their requirements, it will only end in tragedy. Let's learn from our mistakes, everyone

(0) 讚！ | 钟灵毓秀

After submitting the manuscript, they asked me to update the references. But after updating the references and resubmitting, they said that the novelty was still not sufficient

(0) 讚！ | 雪落你看不见

Before the last revision, if you can guess who it is, you can block it in the cover letter, or provide evidence in the cover letter to the editor about the reviewer's issues. We previously published an article, and we guessed who the one always rejecting it was, blocked it in the cover letter, and explained that he intentionally made blind accusations of errors in our content that we did not actually make and did not need to make. So the final round of edits is likely to be accepted, and it should not be sent back to him again

(0) 讚！ | 钟灵毓秀

Submission Process:
2024.1.9 submitted Returned for updating references and resubmitted
2024.1.12 under review
2024.1.25 rejected Five reviewers with 27 comments, can resubmit
2024.2.20 submitted Resubmitted after major revision
2024.3.4 major revision One reviewer wants to reject, one minor revision, others accepted
2024.3.6 submitted
2024.3.11 major revision Same reviewer wants to reject
2024.3.12 submitted
2024.3.19 under review again after rrc
2024.3.21 rejected Found a new arbitrator reviewer, still wants to reject

I have been through more than two months of hardship, exhausted mentally, the efficiency of the editor-in-chief is really high, but he didn't even bother to read specifically what the reviewers and I replied.
The reviewers' questions were all over the place, even they themselves did not understand, just kept saying there were issues with my work. The new reviewer was even more absurd, rejecting without making relevant points.
No complaints about the editor, it's not easy to handle so many submissions efficiently. Those two reviewers are really something else, unbelievable, just have to accept my bad luck!

(0) 讚！ | 大宝贝666

Just add some updated and relevant literature, of high quality

(0) 讚！ | pyq

Hello, I have encountered the same opinion. May I ask how the modifications regarding updates on research progress are made so that I can consult with you?

(0) 讚！ | 全都能中

Submission Process: First of all, thumbs up for the efficiency of Editor-in-Chief Professor Khan 

10.23 With Editor
10.23 Under Review
23 review invitations sent out, 6 accepted
11.18 Required Reviews Completed
Total of 33 review comments, 2 accepted directly, 2 minor revisions, 1 major revision, second reviewer rejected, editor ultimately gave major revision comments, one month to revise
12.13 Under Review
Sent back to 3 reviewers, 2 agreed to accept, previously rejected reviewer stated they want to incorporate a deformation mechanism not considered before into the model and indicated acceptance after modification
1.7 Under Review
1.8 Accept
Overall, the journal has high standards, significant improvement in article quality after two rounds of revisions, Professor Khan always handles manuscripts promptly, very efficient

(21) 讚！ | Youth

Submission process:
2023.12.13 submit
2023.12.14 Returned for resubmission, editor suggests updating research progress, recommends 6 reviewers
2023.12.19 submit
2023.12.19 with editor
2023.12.19 under review
2024.01.02 rrc

(1) 讚！ | pyq

Can I ask how you have updated the latest developments in the field you requested? Thank you!

(0) 讚！ | pyq

May I ask how you have modified the latest updates in the area where updates are requested?

(0) 讚！ | pyq

Hello, I am in the preparation stage of submitting an article. I saw the comments and wanted to ask how IJP requires updates on the latest developments in the field

(0) 讚！ | 守不住时光

Haha, thank you, it will be a good outcome!

(0) 讚！ | Xavieryan

You're amazing! I'm also feeding off your good luck. I'm also doing a major revision. I am submitting the revised manuscript today and hoping for a good outcome!!

(0) 讚！ | merryking

Great job, friend! I'm also riding on your good luck. I also have a major revision to submit today, hoping for a good outcome!

(1) 讚！ | merryking

9.22 Submission.
9.25 With editor.
10.01 Editor Khan agrees to submit for review, but requests an update on the latest developments in the field and recommends six reviewers from different continents/countries, preferably potential reviewers in the IJP database, to expedite the review process.
10.03 Submission-With editor.
10.05 Under review.
10.24 RRC.
10.25 Decision on first review. There are a total of fourteen comments. Reviewers 1 and 3 commented "An interesting article," while Reviewer 2, an expert in crystallography, provided insightful and well-reasoned feedback. Editor Khan suggested extensive (major) revisions with a deadline of one month. After two weeks of intensive discussion from various angles, a thorough thirteen-page response was prepared. The quality of the article was significantly improved in the end.
11.08 Revised manuscript submission.
11.20 Accept. Reviewer 2 was the only one consulted, as they agreed that all revisions had been made and the arguments were sound.
We are truly grateful to Editor Khan for his efficiency and kindness. We wish him good health and continued success in all his endeavors!

(1) 讚！ | Xavieryan