2.14, submit; 2.15, with editor; 2.23, under review; 3.16, major revision. There was a total of three reviewers, the first two asked some small questions, which were easy to answer, the third reviewer was very serious and asked 20 questions! The statistical method was request to modify. 4.17, 7 pages were replied in R1; 4.19, under review; 5.12, major revision was required. Only the third reviewer’s opinion was provided, with 8 major points and 37 very detailed points (basically regarding to the terms and structure). They gave specific suggestions for many of the problems. For example, it would be better to replace word A with word B. 6.6, 7 pages were replied carefully in R2! 6.26, minor revision was required. The reviewer gave a very high evaluation, but also mentioned 16 very detailed points, also regarding to the terms and structure. 6.27, R3; 6.28, accepted! 8.4, proof available for checking. This is the first article in my life. I was grateful! I was always fantasizing of sharing the experience after the acceptance. Finally, it was the day! I always felt anxious, and only got relieved after receiving the proof! Thank you, my Brazilian friend, for handling it so efficiently! I am grateful to meet such a good reviewer and I’ve learnt a lot! I wish EES better and better!

(7) Thank | heyyou!

2020.3.5 First submission; 2020.3.6 the editor returned the manuscript and let me revise the first time (format issues), and the revision should be returned within 60 days. 2020.3.7 revised submission. 2020.3.18 the editor returned the manuscript and let me revise for the second time (the article background research was not enough, and there was no comparison of the data of the peers in recent years), and the revision should be returned within 60 days. 2020.5.8 revised submission. 2020.5.19 the editor returned the manuscript and let me revise the third time (the editor queried insufficient repeatability, and let me give him evidences), and the revision should be returned within 60 days. 2020.6.4, revised submission; 2020.6.9, sent for review; 2020.6.18 The number of reviewers reached the required number, and the editorial office would decide (returned so soon... I thought it would be rejected...); 2020.6.21 Review comments came back. I was surprised that only one reviewer asked me to correct some minor problems. There was no need to make up experiments, principles, etc. The other reviewers unanimously agreed acceptance and gave high praise~ Yeah! The editorial office gave a minor revision. Hahahaha, the revision should be returned within 30 days. After looking at the questions raised, reviewer 1 should be a peer. 2020.7.2 I returned the revised manuscript and I was waiting anxiously. 2020.7.8 acceptance. It is the first SCI paper in my life. It is a surprise to be the first author of a paper in a Q2 journal. I don’t have much experience in writing and submitting the manuscript all by myself. The editorial office was quite troubled in the early stage. I thought it was already at the edge of rejection. I didn’t expect that the manuscript seemed to be much smoother after review. Although the speed seemed to be slower during the epidemic period, the overall efficiency of this journal was still very high. Personally, I recommend it~ If the direction is in line with the journal, you can have a try~

(20) Thank | yipfong

Submitted on April 25; Major revision required on August 12 (Three reviewers: one felt that there was nothing new and we argued with reasons; the other two had an overall positive evaluation, but the questions were also very detailed and comprehensive. Two months of revision were given. Because I had too many other things to do, I had to return the manuscript till the deadline. It was basically revised according to the reviewers’ comments; we wrote 7 pages of responses to reviewers, and referred to a lot of literature); The manuscript was resubmitted on October 12; it was returned on October 15 due to the format issues. The manuscript cannot be submitted as pdf format. I resubmitted the manuscript after revision on the same day; soon it was with editor; October 24, decision in process!!! It seemed that it had not been sent out for review. I'm super nervous... It was accepted on October 26 (but I really didn't dare to look at the results. I only checked the system on October 28 and found that It was accepted. Ha Ha). The first review was relatively slow, mainly because it was true that the articles in this field were not inconsiderable internationally. I heard that a lot of reviewers have been invited till at last three agreed to review... But there is no epidemiological article in this field in China, we think it is very necessary. Fortunately, the editor-in-chief Bing Yan agrees with our point of view. So happy~ The reviewers read carefully and are of high level, which is very helpful to improve the quality of the paper. The editorial office processes manuscripts quickly and responds to questions quickly. Generally speaking, the speed is relatively fast. IF 2018 is 4.5. I am optimistic about this journal.

(3) Thank | d66

The overall speed is very fast and the efficiency is very high. There are a total of 3 reviewers. Two months given for revision. The reviewer wrote more than 5,000 words. After the revision, I felt that the article was greatly improved.

(9) Thank | joey真是大头

How many rounds of revisions do you have? I submitted on 3.9, revised on 4.28, and need to revise again on 6.12.

(0) Thank | hunanhospital

Please transfer my submission to another magazine if it is rejected on April 25th.

(0) Thank | 超威懒猫zzz

How many reviewers are there? Are they reviewing quickly?

(0) Thank | 夏日瞌睡事件

1.18 With Editor
1.20 Under Review
3.10 Major Revision
3.25 Accept
Welcome to communicate with colleagues~

(1) Thank | Liuxysgk

The second review is coming up in three months, but we still need one more reviewer. It's really urgent and frustrating... Sigh. So urgent.

(0) Thank | Accept-618

How can I know if it is in the second instance?

(0) Thank | 加加莉

Two people are reviewing the draft.

(0) Thank | 一个笨小孩

The second review by two people has been completed, and three more people have been invited to review the manuscript. What does this mean?

(0) Thank | 谢大头

My second review is also completed by two people, and three more reviewers have been invited. I don't know what it means.

(0) Thank | 谢大头

What's the situation now, may I ask?

(0) Thank | hunanhospital

Can you please let me know when the results of the plagiarism check are usually provided? Will it be mentioned at the time of submission? Thank you.

(0) Thank | hunanhospital

How can I know the progress of the submission? How can I see how many people have submitted and whether any manuscripts have been accepted for review?

(0) Thank | hunanhospital

January 26, 2025, submission;
Around February 2, 2025, under review, no one has reviewed it yet;
March 22, 2025, one person accepted the review.

(0) Thank | 一个笨小孩

Oh, this is really frustrating. Should I follow up on this? My editor hasn't found a new reviewer yet. It's driving me crazy, it's been over two months since the second review...

(0) Thank | Accept-618

Me too, exactly the same. One of the second reviewers ran away, and we had to invite 6 new reviewers. Only one accepted the invitation, but they have not reviewed the article yet. It has been half a month with no progress.

(0) Thank | 谢大头

It has been over 5 months since submission, and 2 reviewers have provided feedback. The editor is still looking for the third one. This journal is so slow.

(0) Thank | wynn_max

Urgent... One expert has already finished the second review, but the other expert has not accepted the invitation for review for a month and a half. This expert is driving me crazy!! How do I handle this situation... sigh.

(0) Thank | Accept-618

Excuse me, which editor is this?

(0) Thank | 夏日瞌睡事件

I hope I don't get the editor in charge of my journal, it takes three to four months for one review!!! Two reviewers recommended acceptance directly in the second review, but the editor still found an additional 53 reviewers for me (ultimately four accepted the review)!!! The reviewers' opinions were clear: they did not understand the editor's intentions, and finding new reviewers in the second review was extremely unfair to the authors.

(0) Thank | yl000

Submission on November 16, 2024
Review on November 20, 2024
Major revision on February 7, 2025
Submission on February 17, 2025
Acceptance on March 6, 2025
Thanks to editor Liang Yong for his high efficiency, always following up. The reviewers are also very professional. Wishing EES to continue to improve!

(0) Thank | 猪猪女孩_zhang

One of the experts has finished reviewing my second draft, but the other expert has still not accepted the invitation to review the manuscript. It has been a month already and this expert is driving me crazy!

(0) Thank | Accept-618