2020.6.29, submission; 2020.8.11, minor revision; 2020.9.10, minor revision, and it was accepted directly after submission. The reviewers were very careful and professional, and the comments raised are of great help to the improvement of the article. The mental process was relatively tortuous, but the result was OK. Thanks to the associate editor. There were 3 reviewers. In the first review, the comments of 3 reviewers relatively positive, but the comments were plenty. The associate editor required minor revision (Associate editor: The list is pretty long, however most of them are minor in my opinion). It was submitted after a careful revision, and I thought that the problems would not be too big. After waiting for a month, minor revision was required. Reviewer 1 and reviewer 3 had basically no opinion. Reviewer 2 suddenly said that there were still many problems in the article and attached a page of opinions (The reviewer 2 only raised some format questions in the first review, and they were revised seriously. I doubted that the reviewer was changed). I had no choice but continue to revise with tears. The replies to the review comments were written 6 pages and it was submitted. I was in a state of anxiety, thinking that there would be at least another one round of review, and I still don’t know whether it was good or bad. But unexpectedly, the associate editor accepted it directly that night. Thanks to the associate editor!

(7) Thank | fcq009

17-Jun-2020, submitted; 27-Jul-2020, rejected (revised and resubmitted); 31-Aug-2020, minor revision; 02-Sep-2020, minor revision; 14-Sep-2020, accepted. The review speed was fast, and the comments from the experts were pertinent. Introduction is still very important. Before I submitted to this journal, I submitted to a journal with higher impact factor. I didn’t find the reason until I submitted to this journal, the comments from editors and experts made me realize the importance of introduction. It is my first time to submit to SCI journals. Although I have undergone many experiences that the articles were submitted on one day, but it was rejected on the next day. However, as long as the innovation is sufficient and it was standardized-written, it can be accepted.

(3) Thank | ay汉堡

2020.5.15--Submission; 2020.6.18-Reject (revise and resubmit): There were five reviewers in the first review, and each reviewer put forward several pages of comments. They hit the nail on the head and felt very good. There should also be two best experts (I guessed). One minor revision, three major revisions, and one rejection was received. The article was criticized for nothing, and we bit the bullet and revised it for almost two months. 2020.8.4--resubmission; 2020.8.17-Reject (revise and resubmit): Three reviewers, two agreed to accept, and one required a minor revision. I felt that the reviewers were very serious and meticulous, and the speed was very fast. There were basically no major opinions this time, and it was revised and submitted soon. 2020.8.22-Revised submission; 2020.8.26-Accepted. The journal is not bad, and it is best to have strong engineering practice. It is said that it is sometimes fast and sometimes slow, depending on the luck and direction.

(7) Thank | zzynhxq

This journal is actually very speedy.

(4) Thank | marshall121@163.com

Still under review.

(0) Thank | wsh131

The direction is FBG pressure sensor, submitted in December 2024, reviewed for three months in the first round, revised for one month, and now two months have passed since the second round submission, a total of six months have passed, this is too slow.

(0) Thank | wsh131

2025.4.28 submission
2025.4.28 Under Review
2025.6.11 Still Under Review
The review process is really slow recently.

(0) Thank | NEULee

It has been 40 days since the second review, and there are only two reviewers. Should we follow up on it?

(0) Thank | Year.

Publisher's note: Equations [All Inline and Display] are in picture format. Please provide an updated source file containing all equations in Mathtype-editable format.
Indeed, the formulas in the document are all in Mathtype format. Why is there such an issue?

(0) Thank | Grant12

How are things going now?

(0) Thank | wudaxia

I have encountered this before, the image resolution was too high, 600*600 DPI was changed to 300*300.

(0) Thank | Grant12

It seems like there is a bug in the IEEE Author Center. I have encountered a similar issue before, where it said there was a problem with the PDF of the manuscript. So I resubmitted all the materials and it was resolved.

(0) Thank | HHH51

The current graphical abstract file is having some trouble loading in the PDF proof. Could you please try uploading the file in a different format? Have any experts encountered this situation before? How should we solve it?

(0) Thank | S_sh

Hello, may I ask if your status in the system is "Under Review" or "This submission is under consideration and cannot be edited. Further information will be emailed to you by the journal editorial office"?

(0) Thank | dfadffdsaf

25.02.08:Submit.
25.03.16:Rejected & Resubmission{
               Reviewer1:Major Revision;Reviewer2:Minor Revision;}
25.04.08:Resubmit.
25.05.10:Rejected & Resubmission{
               Reviewer1:Publish unalter;Reviewer2:Review Again After Resubmission;}
25.05.15:Resubmit.
25.06.01:Accept, Subject to Mandatory Corrections
Submitted revised version, asked me to submit Final Files in 1 hour
Feels like the first major revision took too long, maybe there were new reviewers, and then got rejected and resubmitted again.

(1) Thank | HHH51

2025.2.6 Submission
2025.5.05 First review with minor revisions from two reviewers, 10+1 suggestions
2025.5.15 Unable to login due to system malfunction from 10th, Resubmission on 15th
2025.6.04 Accepted with only the comments from the first reviewer showing, approval granted

Overall, much more user-friendly than Trans, possibly due to a less popular direction, making it difficult to find reviewers and resulting in a longer first review period.
Difficulty level seems manageable, just a bit long for the first review, but it's all good if accepted.

(0) Thank | Grant12

In the direction of optical spectroscopy, we encountered a Chinese associate editor, who may be more friendly.

(0) Thank | chen985

5.16 resub
6.4 r&r
Isn't it the English version of the Three Districts Card, buddy? Is it true or false? The feedback from a reviewer feels very good, with very fair and valuable opinions, as well as some more abstract ones, I won't say much.

(0) Thank | 伊卡nanoda

I am in the direction of fiber Bragg grating sensors. The first review took three months, and after a major revision, it took another month. It has been 46 days since the second review was submitted, but there has been no response yet. I am anxious. May I ask what direction in optics you are in?

(0) Thank | wsh131

Envious, my "Accept, Subject to Mandatory Corrections" reply has been sent back for over ten days, still awaiting a decision.

(0) Thank | ChunEG

Could you please clarify if the charge for pages exceeding 8 is $175 per page, or if it includes the first 8 pages? For example, for a 10-page article, would the charge be $1750 or $350? Thank you!

(0) Thank | 停轩

Yes, I sent out the communication, thinking that every author was notified, but it was a mistake. Now it's been rectified.

(0) Thank | cclook

Are you communicating? Generally, it is sent to communicate.

(0) Thank | chen985

One month of repairs, panting and wheezing to finish, and then another month of rejection with completely different reasons from the first time. I'm really fed up.

(0) Thank | 霁云月

The new system indicates that the Return Draft situation may be due to a formatting issue. The editorial department mentioned that they sent me an email, but I did not receive it. Does anyone know why?

(0) Thank | cclook