I submitted a manuscript to Elsevier journal on Jan. 19. I received reviewers' comments on Feb. 15. The reviewers' comments are:
Reviewer 1:
I would like to congratulate the authors on this very good piece of work, which is of general interest. The work presented in this paper allows for a significant improvement of the .... which is of potential interest for many users. The paper is very clear and well written, so I have only a few very minor comments, which could be even addressed at the proofreading stage.
Then the reviewer gave three comments. One of them suggested adding a reference, the second required splitting a table, and the last one asked to make a database in our work available for public.
Reviewer 2:
In the Introduction can you elaborate on why the absence of .... caused the error in the ....? The authors make a large jump from the fact that the ... had error to the relationship with .... The connection is unclear. Also what is the magnitude of the errors? Maybe they are neglible.
Then the reviewer asked changing a caption of a figure and asked to make the database available as the first reviewer did.
Although I think the comments imply minor correction to the manuscript, the decision of the editor was major correction and revise within 6 weeks.
I revised the manuscript addressing all comments and resubmit by the end of 4 weeks, on March 14.
While I was expecting receiving of approval shortly, the manuscript stayed "with editor" for longer than the first review time. I wrote to the editor asking about the status and after one hour the status changed to "under review".
Given that the average time taken between revised and accepted is 13 days for this journal and my case now already exceeded 45 days, will the manuscript be likely rejected?