The German editors are very good, they work quickly and reviewed it for two months.
There were three reviewers, one rejected it and suggested two major revisions, with the reason for rejection being just one sentence. The editor asked for the major revisions.
After the revisions were made, there were some minor formatting changes suggested.
Finally, it was accepted.

(1) 讚！ | Melvin

Hello, I would like to ask, if "YES" is selected for the Reporting of Experimental Results in the additional information section, there is an option to submit a Validation Report file in the attach files section. However, there is no corresponding Validation Report file name in the options below. How should it be submitted?

(0) 讚！ | pmlqiuqiuqiu

Do I need line numbers when submitting the manuscript?

(0) 讚！ | 新大杨博

2022.4.23 Submission to Journal
2022.4.27 With editor
2022.4.28 Under Review
2022.5.19 Under Review
2022.5.20 Minor revision (Rene Androsch)
2022.5.21 Revision Submitted to Journal
2022.5.21 With Editor
2022.5.23 Under Review
2022.5.23 Minor revision (Rene Androsch)
2022.5.25 Revision Submitted to Journal
2022.5.27 Accepted

(1) 讚！ | Alexander-wz

A very poor experience, not worth investing.

(0) 讚！ | yason.

The reviewer is very professional. There is one major revision round and one minor revision round. Acceptance and publication.

(2) 讚！ | 漫索手心

Sharing the submission process with everyone:
2021.10.05 submitted to Journal
2021.10.07 with editor
2021.10.07 under review
2021.10.27 major revision
2021.11.29 revised manuscript submitted to Journal
2021.12.14 minor revision
2021.12.15 accept

I misunderstood the previous review timeline, thinking it was the response time for the first review comments. The actual review process took 2.5 months. The speed and quality were both excellent, and I hope it is helpful for everyone.

(3) 讚！ | spring_sh

German reviewers, the review process is very fast, the review comments are professional, worth recommending.

(3) 讚！ | spring_sh

Submitted 53 days ago, underwent major revisions. Three reviewers provided a total of 27 comments, carefully considering each aspect of the article. Returned to the editorial department after 12 days and accepted the following day, demonstrating high efficiency. The whole process took two months. It is the first SCI paper for the author, making them particularly happy. Wishing TCA continued success.

(4) 讚！ | AACCEPT

2020/10/23 submitted
2021/02/25 accept
During the process, there were two major revisions and one minor revision. In the first major revision, the editor raised a question regarding the selection of the dynamic model, and both reviewers provided over 40 questions. It took over a month to respond to the letter, and the content was longer than the main text. In the second major revision, one of the reviewers provided suggestions on the structure of the article, which were then incorporated into the modifications. The third minor revision mainly addressed issues with sentence construction. Both the editor and the reviewers were very responsible and paid close attention to detail. As a result of the three revisions, the quality of the article significantly improved.

(20) 讚！ | YNJ

Reply to the 30th floor: references with the thermal analysis method were provided in the editor Sergey Vyazovkin's comments. I revised the manuscript according to the method inside, as my thermal analysis level was not high... In addition, this journal itself does not charge a publication fee. There is an OA option but it is not mandatory.

(0) 讚！ | shuiwa

I previously submitted it to JAAP. The editor suggested us to transfer it to TCA. After 3 weeks, I received the opinions requiring a major revision (1 reviewer rejected the manuscript, 1 reviewer required a minor revision, and the editor Sergey Vyazovkin gave 3 comments), and response with additional experimental data was required. The editor Sergey Vyazovkin required the major revision, and thought the thermal analysis method was unreasonable. I exchanged the thoughts of thermal analysis method with the editor and adopted the recommended method, then it was accepted. Sergey Vyazovkin is a good person and willing to communicate.

(3) 讚！ | shuiwa

2019/08/20, submitted; 2019/10/25, minor revision; two reviewers; 2019/11/06, returned; 2019/11/12, accepted. Very good and professional comments from two reviewers; very nice editor Prof. R. Androsch. Hopefully this journal will be better.

(10) 讚！ | NickShi

contributed on June 26, 2018;Modification of the format on June 28;Submitted to the reviewer for review on July 4th;The reviewer's information is returned on August 1;Return to the review comments on August 19, overhaul;Second trial on September 13;Return to minor repair on October 17;Accepted on October 24th.During the period of 4 months, the overall feeling of review comments is very professional, as long as the article is clear, the key questions are answered professionally, the editors and reviewers are still very Nice!

(5) 讚！ | Jack Wang

In the big amnes, is this journal collecting money?

(0) 讚！ | GD林奈

Two reviewers, one overhaul, one minor repair.Very fast2018/6/5 Submitted Edited for about four or five days, 6/8 format problem returned2018/6/25 Overhaul Modified more than a monthSubmitted 2018/8/102018/8/23 minor repair2018/9/2 receiving
   The review was quick, the opinions were quite professional, and the problems of writing papers were pointed out.After finishing the quality of the paper, I went up

(3) 讚！ | shelley

Submit a 50-day overhaul, one accepts one rejection, and the editor gives a major repair.He was rehabilitated in one month, and the second trial was 20 days. The reviewers insisted on rejecting and were eventually rejected.Editor-in-chief.

(1) 讚！ | 137173004@qq.com

Submitted 2018.1.30Under review 2018.1.31Under Editor Evaluation 2018.3.1After a week or soMajor Revision (1 rejection of 1 minor, editor Sergey Vyazovkin gave two comments)Revision submitted 2018.4.30With editor, under review 2018.5.2Accepted 2018.5.18

(3) 讚！ | 千里草

just received an article.Content is thermodynamicsI was rejected by another journal. I was also considered to have a problem with the scientific research attitude. I mistakenly selectd for this journal, and I gave the review comments in a week. The two reviewers were very professional and careful, and raised many questions.Some of them are problems that I have been avoiding a bit. I really feel a few levels after I changed them, so I am very grateful to the reviewers.Then the second overhaul was a bit of an academic discussion, and the minor repair was submitted within one day.Perhaps due to professional problems, the requirements for innovation are not very high, but the article must be meaningful.

(4) 讚！ | Anonymous

悲退

(1) 讚！ | 前期

Received at Editorial office:18 Nov 2016;Article revised: 8 Mar 2017;Article accepted for publication: 11 Mar 2017The speed is still very fast, my instrument analysis class, the first modification to more than 80 comments, very professional, followed by a minor repair.

(1) 讚！ | 349784407@qq.com

I am eager to graduate, and I am looking for a fast-moving journal in the comments.This journal is really good. The editors and reviewers are very careful and patient, giving me a lot of valuable advice.I am doing research on phase change materials. This is the first SCI, which has injected a lot of effort. Fortunately, I accepted it in the end. I hope the journal will be better and better~11.4-Picture, 12.14-overhaul, 1.18-submitted, 3.6 receive.

(7) 讚！ | 413788283@qq.com

It feels very fast, just an article that my undergraduate has just scraped together.Voted on September 9, 2016Minor repair on October 23, 2016Received on October 24, 2016

(1) 讚！ | WANGLIPENG1992@126.com

I submitted on May 24 and received the first-round of review comments on July 2. The reviewer comments were very very professional. I have studied mostly metal materials, so my knowledge in heat transfer is not as good, but the reviewers helped me by asking a lot of questions. Most importantly, the reviewers' tone was very kind. The reviewers suggested additional experiments. I completed the suggested experiments and read some books on the related theories before writing the responses to the comments. My responses were 30-page long! I resubmitted on August 8, and at 4 am on August 23, I received a reply from the Japanese editor Nabuyoshi KOGA telling me the paper was accepted. This is my third paper in SCI journals. When I wrote this paper, I had to write my dissertation at the same time because there were only a few months left till graduation, so I was a little careless in writing this paper. I knew the first draft was not well written, and when I saw that the reviewers had pointed out so many defects in my paper, I was worried that the paper would not be accepted for publication. I think many articles in this journal are of good quality, better than some articles that are only repeating previous research even though they are published in journals that are in the Q1 category of metal materials. This journal requires high quality in terms of quantitative analyses and heat transfer-related theories.

(4) 讚！ | 15815634@qq.com

agree that this journal is good, 2015 IF has dropped?Voted for a month, Under Review, pray!

(16) 讚！ | 15815634@qq.com