On April 2nd the manuscript was submitted to the journal; on April 3rd the editor-in-chief required a major revision and the language was required to be polished, and then I used the Elsevier polishing service; on April 9th resubmit; on April 10th with editor; on April 14th under review; on April 16th required reviews completed; on April 24th under review; on May 11th required reviews completed; on May 18th major revision; Two reviewers, a total of three questions were asked; on June 15th resubmit; on June 15th with editor; on June 17th under review; on June 19th required reviews completed; on June 22nd required reviews completed; on June 25th major revision was required and the reviewer requested additional data; on June 29th resubmit; on June 29th with editor; on July 2st under review; on July 6th required reviews completed; on July 10th accept. The assigned associate editor is Xiao Hu. I wish International Ceramics better and better!

(10) Thank | Π大※

2019.11.08 submit; 11.08 with editor; 11.08 send back to author (to modify reference format); 11.08 submitted to the journal (and sent for review by editor-in-chief Pietro Vincenzini personally, and it was under review at about two o'clock that night); 12.30 It lasted for 52 days, with only one reviewer, who suggested a minor revision, and three minor issues, which were basically language issues. The editor-in-chief also suggested language editing. 2020.1.08 Submitted it to the journal after we modified and polished, and then it was under review on the same day. 1.16 under review (the date of the status changed); 1.24 Accepted at 4 pm before dinner on New Year’s Eve. Thank you very much, Professor Pietro Vincenzini, for handling manuscripts with a high efficiency! It had been tragedies for the previous submissions continuously, which lasted for a year, and it was luck to have a good result in the end!

(1) Thank | 路人壬癸

June 28 submitted to the journal; June 28 Send back to author (to modify format and language); June 30 revision submitted to journal; July 1 with editor; July 3 under review. This was the first time that I submitted to this journal. The editor said that the language should be modified, and it was submitted for review two days after the revisions. The editing efficiency was very high. July 4 required reviews completed; July 5 under review; July 8 required reviews completed; July 9 major revision. Two reviewers, seven or eight comments. Although I made a major revision, it was quite easy to respond to the comments, which could be considered as a minor revision. July 13 revision submitted to the journal; July 13 with editor; July 15 accept. Thanks to the elderly professor Pietro Vincenzini, whose efficiency is really super high!

(7) Thank | 一贱封神

3.04 submitted to journal (with editor); 3.04 under review; 3.12 under review; 3.20 under review; 3.28 under review; 4.05 under review; 4.13 under review; 5.06 major revision; 5.26 revised; 6.16 accept; 6.17 proof (available online). It was very fast to send the paper for review. But it had been always refused by the reviewer. So it had been changed to under review every 8 days. The review turnaround time usually is about three weeks. The reviewer’s comments were available only in early May. There were 9 review comments for the major revision. I replied it well and supplemented an experiment. The editor added a comment after the reviewer's comments that I should polish my English. I revised it and waited for a whole three weeks. And then it was accepted directly, which was great!!!

(7) Thank | 科研做不动

I just talked to a colleague who works in Canada but grew up in the UK about some English grammar issues I dealt with during a recent submission to Ceramics International. I don’t want to bore anyone with my phone call, but my manuscript was held up by the editor of this journal for a debate between using the phrase “sufferer of” versus “suffer from”. I mean, come on!

(4) Thank | Bob

I just talked to a colleague, who worked in Canada but was born and raised in the UK, about the editor-in-chief’s English Grammar "Suffer of". I said that I only knew "Suffer from" for many years, but didn't know that "Suffer of" could also be used. That friend quickly replied to my Email, saying that: [You're right. I've been checking, and you “suffer from” but you're a “sufferer of”. So the Editor is most likely incorrect. The rest of the response is also grammatically incorrect!] Then you can see how shameless the editor-in-chief of the journal is. The comments given also used Poor English Grammar, and it’s surprisingly to say that others used Poor English Grammar! How shameless it is! ! !

(68) Thank | Bob

Reviewer #1:
Invitation Accepted: 2025.4.6 P.M.
Completed: 2025.4.7 Noon
According to the review timeline, it is speculated that the reviewer is from China. (No time difference between submission time and query time)
Reviewer #2:
Invitation Accepted: 2025.4.5 A.M.
Completed: 2025.4.18 A.M.
Time difference of 1 hour, speculated to be a reviewer from Japan/South Korea.

(0) Thank | He him his

●2025.4.18 A.M. Required Review Completed
●2025.4.22 P.M. Decision in Process & Major Revision (in 28 days)

Pietro Vincenzini: Pay attention to English spelling and grammar editing;
Reviewer #1: (Major Revision) 4 comments: Format, graphic quality needs improvement, and issues with paper structure;
Reviewer #2: (Major Revision) 13 comments: Very professional and thorough comments. Suggestions for improvement in mechanisms, paper structure, and questioning the accuracy of methodology. However, all reviewers' opinions are reasonable.
(Not very easy to revise, added a lot of experiments and tests)

(0) Thank | He him his

请提供待翻译的文本。

(0) Thank | He him his

请问您需要什么帮助？

(0) Thank | He him his

●2025.5.19 evening Revised [Submitted the night before the deadline, independently completed experiments, testing, revised drafts, and responding to comments (actually, the initial draft and idea generation were also completed independently, which seems quite common in China?), stayed up late for a week or two, finally Resubmit]
●2025.5.20 early morning With Editor (Pietro Vincenzini)
———A few minutes later With Editor (Vincenzo M. Sglavo)
●2025.5.29 evening Under Review (Review Invitations Sent: 2)

(0) Thank | He him his

Reviewer #1:
Invitation Accepted: 2025.6.2 P.M. 
Completed: 2025.6.3 P.M.
Reviewer #2:
Invitation Accepted: 2025.5.30 A.M. 
Completed: 2025.6.3 A.M.

● 2025.6.3 P.M. Required Review Completed
● 2025.6.10 Evening Decision in Process
● 2025.6.11 Evening Accept
● 2025.6.12 A.M. Available Online
————————Proof
Submission to acceptance took 76 days.

(0) Thank | He him his

After the major revision was completed, the editor-in-chief did not give minor revisions but accepted it directly, which was unexpected to me because I thought the revisions were not particularly perfect, and some of the explanations for Reviewer 2 were not very sufficient. My first-authored paper was submitted to a national journal, and the process was relatively smooth. The handling speed of the associate editor, Vincenzo M. Sglavo, may be a bit slow (possibly due to the large number of submissions in the field of ceramics). Surprisingly, the editors and reviewers did not mention any issues with English, so friends with some basic English skills can use AI and software to polish their work. Wishing everyone a successful submission!

(0) Thank | He him his

The first SCI paper, hereby recorded. Written in more detail, hoping to help friends who are anxious during the review period like me:
Material - in the field of silicate
● 2025.3.28 Noon Summit Manuscript
● 2025.3.28 17:00 With Editor (Pietro Vincenzini)
● 2025.3.29 4:00 With Editor (Vincenzo M. Sglavo)
● 2025.4.5 1:00 Under Review (Review Invitations Sent: 2)

(0) Thank | He him his

Why are the revision comments not showing the modification time when the feedback is returned?

(0) Thank | 5313

The second reviewer has been reviewing for 33 days without any response. Should I ask the teacher to remind them? ?

(0) Thank | 差点长成美女

Usually 21 days are given for review.

(2) Thank | 江1

Submit on January 3, 2025
First review completed on February 12, 2025, major revision
Submit revised draft on March 20, 2025
Review completed on May 27, 2025
Accepted on June 5, 2025

(0) Thank | Blackwhite

What is the required duplication rate for this journal?

(0) Thank | asdf1

My current state at that time was.

(0) Thank | 差点长成美女

How long does it usually take for reviewers to review the manuscript after submission? ?? It has been over a month since the external review and there is still no news. The second reviewer has been reviewing for 15 days with no updates.

(0) Thank | 差点长成美女

Hello big brothers, may I ask, after submitting the manuscript, if the chief editor hands it over to the deputy editor for processing, does it mean there is a chance for review?

(0) Thank | 5313

How are you now, sisters? Have you accepted it?

(0) Thank | xhjijdwqi

One reviewer accepted on April 6, 2025
Second reviewer accepted on April 11, 2025
First reviewer completed review on April 26, 2025
Second reviewer completed review on May 10, 2025
RRC to peer editor on May 10, 2025

(0) Thank | 龍

Hello, I would like to ask if the editor refined your language. Did you do it yourself or did you pay an organization to provide proof?

(0) Thank | 游新月