Looking back now, it feels like this journal is still relatively easy to get accepted in. At that time, with a bad mindset, I hesitated for a while and thought about submitting to other journals. So, from submission to major revision, reducing similarity, minor revisions, and finally acceptance, it took 6 months, but actually it could have been accepted in a maximum of four months.

Submitted on 16th April 2022.
First review ended with major revision on 19th June 2022, three reviewers suggested modifying the thermodynamic verification method and uncertainty.
Returned on 11th August 2022.
Minor revision required to reduce repetition on 13th August.
Returned on 26th August.
Returned from NIST database with minor revision on 21st September.
Returned on 1st October.
Not satisfied, another minor revision on 2nd October.
Returned on 13th October.
Accepted on 14th October.

(0) 讚！ | 要忘夏夜

2022.1.16 Submission
2022.3.7 First review completed. There were four reviewers. Reviewer 1 did not understand the article and suggested rejection. The remaining three reviewers suggested minor revisions for two of them and major revision for one. However, each person's comments were not extensive. The editor gave three weeks to make the revisions.
2022.3.27 Revised.
2022.5.7 Second review completed. Only three reviewers were shown. One accepted the article, one pointed out a grammar error, and Reviewer 1 still did not understand and suggested rejection. The editor asked for a major revision. Two weeks were given to make the revisions.
2022.5.17 Revised.
2022.5.26 Third review completed. Reviewer 1 suggested changing the term "water content" to "mass fraction." I clearly indicated it in the article and ppm itself means mass fraction. Unfortunately, I had to follow the reviewer's suggestion and added a note below the table.
2022.5.26 Revised.
2022.6.1 Accepted.
The first review took nearly two months, and the second review took one and a half months. Although some classmates had their articles reviewed faster, mine was really slow.

(0) 讚！ | CEIL

Passing halfway through 2020. To be honest, some of JECD's articles are quite good, with detailed and effective data, and basically no issues. If only JECD could remove the data, the impact factor should increase, what a pity.

(1) 讚！ | 举头望明粤

Senior, can you please leave me a contact information? I want to ask about how to calculate the uncertainty of data. I really don't know how to do it. I want to try it out.

(0) 讚！ | 小浪底

10.9 Submitted; 11.6 Major revision; 12.4 Revision submitted; 12.8 Minor Revision; 12.21 Revision submitted; 12.24 Accepted; 1.5 Published online first.

(0) 讚！ | 零ling

7.26 submitted; minor revision made at the beginning of August; minor revision made at the end of October; 11.16 accepted; 11.19 proof received. The reviewers are of a high level, and they pointed out many detailed but key issues.

(0) 讚！ | churchyuan

2019.10.30 Submission; 2019.11.1 Editor assigned; 2019.12.14 Revision comments received. There was a total of two reviewers with probably more than 10 questions, and almost 20 if adding the questions from managing editor and non-technical review. 14 days was given for revision. 2019.12.19 revision submitted; 2019.12.30 5 small comments from the editor were received; 2020.1.9 it was resubmitted after revised according to the comments; 2020.1.27 received the acceptance email. Generally speaking, the time for first review in this journal is basically one month, and you can receive some good suggestions. After the revision, I feel that the article can be greatly improved. In terms of phase diagram, the requirement for the uncertainty of the data is relatively strict. The above comments are for your reference only.

(3) 讚！ | 月上树梢夜微凉

Teacher Wu of Jiaotong University is very responsible and efficient, totalIt lasted for more than three months, and it might be faster if you didn’t drag it yourself.

(0) 讚！ | Sunshining-LXY

2018.03.11Submission2018.03.15Notice uploading copyright agreement2018.04.18 retreat2018.05.03 select revised draft2018.05.14 Receive.After two months of the entire process, the journal's innovative requirements are not particularly high, but the data needs to be substantial and well-founded.The best language is to polish it.

(0) 讚！ | han

Overall, the speed is OK.

(2) 讚！ | 917460972@qq.com

has been submitted and hopes to be acceptd after modification.

(4) 讚！ | 344950973@qq.com

Waiting slowly, hope.

(3) 讚！ | Anonymous

I submitted the manuscript in June, overhauled at the end of July, minor repair at the beginning of August, and accepted soon.Good for this journal, the editor is very friendly, as long as the data is sufficient and reasonable, there is no problem.

(2) 讚！ | Anonymous

is OK. Pretty good

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

What is the process?Can anyone explain the white point?

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

just submitted a don't know what to do ah

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

August 19th contribution; manuscript number ID je-2013-007579, it seems that there are many manuscripts.On September 4th, the notice was filled in the copyright transfer agreement; on September 16th, the editor directly drafted the manuscript, and there was no review opinion. It should be submitted without review.Wasted a month.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

This review cycle is a few months?

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

submitted for nearly four months, no news.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

11Submission No.3, received reply on December 7th, two minor repairs, submitted revised draft on December 14th, accepted on December 20th, due to the first submission, the intermediate submission processThere are small problems in the editor, the editor is very good, very patient, help me correct, in general, as long as it is in line with the journal, write a little better, the speed is very fast

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

8月23Submission SeptemberOn the 14th, the opinion was revised. On October 11th, the manuscript was revised. On October 19th, the expert gave the opinion, but the editor put forward 15 comments on the format request. October 30th selectd to modify the format draft. October 31st received more than two months.One point, the data is required to be comprehensive and the analysis is detailed!

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

7 Submitted on the 18th of the month, waiting... July 23rd, check the weight, August 13th, select revised draft September 10th, changed the editor October 8th, backOpinions, two small, one big November 4th, selectd to amend the November 27th, back to the comments a small November 30th, selectd revised draft December 13th, received

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

this journalCheck it out!

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

I personally think it is ok, the experimental data is more, the analysis of the comprehensive point is not big, the level of reviewers is still quite high, and it has a good inspiration for my own research.And edited very well 哟

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

previous laboratory irrigation journal, it was very difficult to change the editor, and selectd for 2 months to come, and the results were repaired intermittently 7 or 8 times.If you count 2 districts, you will be pointing to graduation. If you are mixing in colleges and universities, there are some efforts to make a few more garbage points.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名