After more than 8 months, the article was finally accepted. The reviewers should be well-known scholars in the industry, and their opinions greatly improved the article. IJP requires systematic experiments in articles and great theoretical innovations, which can improve the understanding of a certain issue in the corresponding industry. It is a top journal in the field of mechanics and machinery, especially in the direction of material processing. Hope it gets better and better.

(5) Thank | 诺亚

The manuscript in which a classic plastic mechanics problem was once solved, only with a comparison of the existing solution but without a comparison of experiments, was submitted to this journal and was rejected!

(3) Thank | 岁月

A traditional mechanics journal impact factor 5 is not nonsense, it is brushed.You can say that nano or soft influence factor is high, and plasticity is not popular in the traditional field. How can it affect factor 5 and journal of elasticity?JMPS is not so high, and JAP mutual brush

(5) Thank | Anonymous

The chief editor processes very quickly. 
2025-3-5 with editor
2025-3-6 reject (check literature and recommend reviewers)
2025-3-7 under review (6 reviewers)
2025-3-30 reject and resubmit (4 major revisions and 2 rejections)
2025-4-15 under review (invite 6 reviewers, 4 accept)
2025-5-12 major revisions (2 accept, 2 reject)
2025-6-2 under review (2 reviewers)
2025-6-18 minor revisions (some comments but agreed to accept)
2025-6-19 accept
Thanks to Chief Editor Prof. Akhtar Khan for the super-fast processing speed!

(0) Thank | llllllli

Has there been a situation where three reviewers have run away from reviewing the manuscript for IJP?

(0) Thank | Leeleyili

If there are only three opinions in the first review, will there definitely be additional reviewers in the second review?

(0) Thank | Accept停不下来

2024.5.8 submitted
2024.5.8 under review (3 reviewers)
2024.5.30 reject and resubmit (1 rejection, 2 major revisions)
2024.7.28 re-submitted (4 reviewers)
2024.8.25 moderate revision
2024.9.5 submitted (only one reviewer)
2024.9.13 revise and resubmit decision
2024.9.15 accepted

(2) Thank | xuanxi

May I ask if the revised submission will still be sent to the original reviewer?

(1) Thank | Ning

May I ask if the revised manuscript will be resubmitted to the same reviewer?

(0) Thank | Ning

Submission Process:
2024.5.21 Submitted
2024.5.22 Returned, requested to revise with latest literature and reviewers
2024.5.23 Revised, under review
2024.6.15 Invited 13 reviewers, accepted 3 reviewers, unknown results

It's been almost a month, why haven't I received the results yet? I've seen others get their IJP reviews back in half to a month. Praying for a good outcome

(0) Thank | lzs625

How long does it take for RRC to return feedback? It has been four days and my RRC has not changed, with the date changing once during this period

(0) Thank | Accept停不下来

Submitted on 15th November 2023 and returned on 21st November 2023 for the addition of the latest literature in the field and recommended 6 reviewers from different regions for the IJP journal. One week given. 
Resubmitted on 25th November 2023, under review. Sent to 36 reviewers, 6 accepted.
One-month revision period starting from 25th December 2023. Major revision required, 6 reviewers pointed out format issues and requested additional experiments.
Reviewer comments received on 30th January 2024. 
Major revision requested on 10th February 2024. 5 reviewers assigned, one-month revision period, in-depth questions raised.
Submitted on 10th March 2024, under review.
Under review on 10th April 2024
Minor revision requested on 29th April 2024, 2 reviewers assigned, one-month revision period, in-depth questions raised.
Submitted on 13th May 2024, under review.
Accepted on 16th May 2024

(0) Thank | 我的未来不是梦

Hello, may I ask if you have rearranged your introduction? I have also encountered this issue

(0) Thank | wang3118

The speed of review by the editors of IJP is first-rate, but it's hard to please the reviewers, they give no face at all. IJP is a good journal, but not suitable for ordinary people or small research groups, hahaha

(1) Thank | newtime

The editor did a great job, very fair and impartial. However, the reviewers were really hard to please. Out of the three assigned reviewers, only one provided constructive criticism, while the other two simply rejected the paper without any valid reasons. Their comments were quite harsh. The quality of the article was not as bad as they made it seem. Even when the paper was eventually accepted by a top journal, the reviewers' negative feedback was really hurtful and unpleasant

(0) Thank | xiaochen96

Submitted on 19th February 2024, returned on 21st February 2024. Added the latest field journal literature and recommended six reviewers from different regions for IJP journal. One week turnaround.
Resubmitted on 23rd February 2024.
Under review on 24th February 2024. Sent to 41 reviewers, 10 accepted the review.
Reviewers reviewed in succession by 8th March 2024, status changed to RRC. Reviewers continue to complete throughout the following period.
Major revision on 17th March 2024. 8 reviewers, one month for revisions and additional experiments.
Submitted on 13th April 2024.
Under review on 14th April 2024.
Minor revision on 22nd April 2024. 2 reviewers provided minor issues.
Submitted on 25th April 2024.
Under review on 26th April 2024.
Accepted on 27th April 2024

(0) Thank | Ning

We originally couldn't guess who it was, but after discussing with colleagues, we thought it might be those few people from a certain group, because it has always been like this. So we blocked those people on CL, and in the next round, there was no more biased reviewer, which seems to have had an effect

(0) Thank | 钟灵毓秀

Thank you, but I also can't figure out which group of people maliciously rejected the submission, wrote a detailed cover letter to the editor, mentioned bias among the reviewers, unprofessional questions raised, but all of these were completely ignored. Sigh

(0) Thank | 大宝贝666

Got it, thanks for clarifying, brother. I will pay more attention to these when I have the chance to try this journal again in the future

(0) Thank | 雪落你看不见

We have also encountered this situation at the beginning, with painful lessons. The main reason is that we did not fully understand the requirements of ijp editors. It is necessary to strictly adhere to several points: 1 recommended reviewers from six different countries on different continents, two each from Asia, Europe, and North America; 2 recommended experts must have published many articles on ijp and be directly related to the proposed submission topic; 3 unless necessary, try to use articles from the past ten years or even the past five years, at least from journals with a ranking of two or higher or are well-known in the field; 4 ijp articles should be well cited, this is the implication ?. If any of the four points are missing, it is possible to be asked to make modifications before resubmitting, but then be told that the innovation is not enough. Asking for modifications in the first place means that the editor still recognizes a certain level of innovation, but if you don't strictly follow their requirements, it will only end in tragedy. Let's learn from our mistakes, everyone

(0) Thank | 钟灵毓秀

After submitting the manuscript, they asked me to update the references. But after updating the references and resubmitting, they said that the novelty was still not sufficient

(0) Thank | 雪落你看不见

Before the last revision, if you can guess who it is, you can block it in the cover letter, or provide evidence in the cover letter to the editor about the reviewer's issues. We previously published an article, and we guessed who the one always rejecting it was, blocked it in the cover letter, and explained that he intentionally made blind accusations of errors in our content that we did not actually make and did not need to make. So the final round of edits is likely to be accepted, and it should not be sent back to him again

(0) Thank | 钟灵毓秀

Submission Process:
2024.1.9 submitted Returned for updating references and resubmitted
2024.1.12 under review
2024.1.25 rejected Five reviewers with 27 comments, can resubmit
2024.2.20 submitted Resubmitted after major revision
2024.3.4 major revision One reviewer wants to reject, one minor revision, others accepted
2024.3.6 submitted
2024.3.11 major revision Same reviewer wants to reject
2024.3.12 submitted
2024.3.19 under review again after rrc
2024.3.21 rejected Found a new arbitrator reviewer, still wants to reject

I have been through more than two months of hardship, exhausted mentally, the efficiency of the editor-in-chief is really high, but he didn't even bother to read specifically what the reviewers and I replied.
The reviewers' questions were all over the place, even they themselves did not understand, just kept saying there were issues with my work. The new reviewer was even more absurd, rejecting without making relevant points.
No complaints about the editor, it's not easy to handle so many submissions efficiently. Those two reviewers are really something else, unbelievable, just have to accept my bad luck!

(0) Thank | 大宝贝666

Just add some updated and relevant literature, of high quality

(0) Thank | pyq

Hello, I have encountered the same opinion. May I ask how the modifications regarding updates on research progress are made so that I can consult with you?

(0) Thank | 全都能中