2022-11-09

Reviewed for a month, one reviewer has completed the review, while the other one has not agreed to review yet, and currently, I dare not urge them, so I can only wait again.

2022-10-09

Are there not many people submitting articles to this magazine? I got destroyed by the first district and top journals, so I switched to this one. The impact factor is decent, and my article is currently under review. I hope for a positive outcome.

2022-06-24

On the second and third day after I submitted my manuscript, it went from being under review to under review already. Isn't that too fast and somewhat unstable?

2021-12-30

The list of SCI zone categories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences is still a necessary reference directory for the research performance rewards and title reviews of many domestic universities and research institutions

2021-12-28

Do you need to consider the zoning when selecting publications?

2021-12-28

There are many types of journals, how to choose the right one?

2021-06-26

This editor needs me to add a medical ethics review.

2021-05-10

First time submitting to SCI, very nervous, but unexpectedly went very smoothly.
Submitted on January 18th; received reviewer comments on February 22nd with minor revisions; returned revised manuscript on March 15th; accepted on March 23rd.
Overall, the journal's efficiency is extremely high. Professor Christine Kranz handled the process very quickly and seriously. Thank you to the editor and reviewers!

2021-01-12

10.17 Submission
11.28 First revision, given one month for modifications. Three reviewers provided close to 30 comments, giving constructive feedback on areas with flaws in the article and some formatting issues. Two reviewers had positive opinions, while the other reviewer remained neutral. After careful revisions, the revised article was returned on 12.18. A few days later, it was shown for reevaluation.
12.28 Second revision, one month for modifications. The reviewers agreed to accept it, but the editor believed there were significant language issues and incorrect chart formats (I did not carefully review the author guidelines). If not properly modified, it could still be rejected. The editor also helped me improve the language in the abstract and introduction, showing their dedication and meticulousness. It is evident that the journal has high requirements for language and figure quality. The revised manuscript was returned on 1.9.
1.1 Acceptance
In general, the journal has a relatively high efficiency, and the editor is also very patient.

2020-12-04

5.24 Submission; 7.3 First revision, major revision, five reviewers. The date was requested to be supplemented while it was supplemented until August due to the epidemic. The revised draft R1 was submitted at around the end of August. 9.15 The second revision was a minor one, and this time a reviewer was changed, who raised new comments. In around early October, the second revised draft R2 was submitted. An email was received in late October, which requested us to revise language. The manuscript was touched up by an agency I found and the third revised draft R3 was submitted in about a week. Very quickly on November 5, “Accept” was displayed and it was published a month later. In general, the review was relatively fast, and the editor was very responsible. I hope it will be better and better~