This year was the first time I submitted to this journal, and they had certain formatting requirements. They returned the manuscript the next day for formatting revisions. Then came the long wait, probably because it was difficult to find reviewers. Finally, I received the reviewers' comments, which were quite fair, and the editor requested major revisions. After making the revisions, it took about a week to receive acceptance.
I submitted on May 24th, and it was accepted on September 8th. Currently, it is already online.

(0) 讚！ | AtlasZ

2-24 submit; 2-27 under review; 2-28, 3 emails received, meaning that 3 reviewers agreed to review the manuscript; 4-30, email received, and another reviewer agreed to review the manuscript. I don’t know if the previous three opinions had a large deviation, or if there was an opinion that has not returned, anyway, the review speed of this journal is really slow, and I don't know what the result will be.

(1) 讚！ | shangbin

I submitted in this journal twice and got rejected once. As an established journal, it has a high standard requirement for manuscripts, and the expertise level of reviewers is relatively high, which is incomparably by some unprofessional journals. But the subject is relatively minority, the impact factor has not been increased. This was also the first SCI in my life. At the same time, I was grateful to the editor of Kate who revised my manuscript and answered all my questions, who helped me a lot.

(22) 讚！ | 羊小羊

I submitted in this journal twice and got rejected once. As an established journal, it has a high standard requirement for manuscripts, and the expertise level of reviewers is relatively high, which is incomparably by some unprofessional journals. But the subject is relatively minority, the impact factor has not been increased. This was also the first SCI in my life, thank you JOURNAL OF THE AIR.

(0) 讚！ | 羊小羊

Submitted on July 31, 2011, and was returned by the editor because the figures were not up to the standards. On August 2, the editor confirmed the receipt of the manuscript and the review process started. On September 15th, we wrote to the editor asking for the status, and was told that the editor had received comments from 2 reviewers and was waiting for the third (need 3 reviewers). Received the decision (major revision) on September 28. Of the three reviewers, 1 requested major revision, 1 requested minor revision, and the other accepted the paper. Revision submitted on October 25, but because a figure did not meet the quality requirements, there were some more back and forth. Accepted on November5.The journal's IF is not very high, but the society has a wide impact, and so many academicians also publish their comments articles here. Papers should have novelty scientifically, but the journal also emphasizes that the research results should be relevant to management policy.

(1) 讚！ | 匿名