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~

(0) Thank | zkx

The manuscript was submitted on October 10, the process was fast, and waiting for the final comments took about half a month. The reviewers were relatively professional, and the questions were tough, some of which were difficult to answer. For example, as for composite material composed of several different reagents, the reviewers thought you should carry out the control experiment in the permutation and combination of which reagent and which reagent to prove the rationality of your composite materials; the influence of other interfering substances contained in the virus containing serum you get from the hospital; and the rationality of the data sources given by the hospitals you listed. There were six reviewers, one rejection, one minor revision, and one major revision. One of them gave two lines of worthless comments, the other two separately gave three or four revision comments. The final decision was rejection.

(1) Thank | 希格玻色子

First submission on January 31, 2019. Reviewers’ comments requiring major revision came back on February 16, 2019. Resubmission on April 14, 2019. I gave a late reply for I didn't go back to school during the Chinese New Year. The comments of the three reviewers mainly required adding a test and revising part of the analysis. On May 1, 2019, the second reviewers’ comments came back. The editor just asked to modify the format and check the language. Submitted for the third time on May 14, 2019 and it was accepted on May 15, 2019. Thanks to the editors and the reviewers. It’s very stressful for me to publish an article for the first time.

(0) Thank | Xuht

Average review cycle – about 3 months from submission to acceptance. Not sure how long it will take to receive the proofs.

(0) Thank | p

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.

(1) Thank | 秋刀鱼

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.

(12) Thank | 秋刀鱼

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?

(0) Thank | Veromca Housman

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

(0) Thank | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

Do you need to consider the zoning when selecting publications?

(0) Thank | 平原文波

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

(0) Thank | 陶宜三岁啦

This editor needs me to add a medical ethics review.

(0) Thank | 切尔西的匕首

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!

(1) Thank | 黑猫白鼻子

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.

(1) Thank | 珂珂米

Submitted on June 20th, received reviewer comments on July 8th, major revisions were requested with two months to revise. After resubmission, reviewer requested minor revisions and the editor pointed out some grammar issues. After making the necessary changes and resubmitting, the editor asked for modifications in the images and format. Despite going back and forth six times, the paper was ultimately accepted. The editor was very patient

(0) Thank | 东风采蓉

Review Speed: 1.0 Experience Sharing: I submitted the manuscript on October 10th, the process was very quick, and I waited for the final decision for almost half a month. The reviewers were relatively professional, and they raised very challenging questions. Some of the questions were really difficult to answer, such as the composition of composite materials with different reagents. The reviewers suggested conducting various control experiments to prove the rationality of the composite materials. They also questioned the influence of other interfering substances in the serum containing viruses that you obtained from the hospital, as well as the validity of the data sources provided by the hospital. There were six reviewers in total, one rejected the manuscript, one suggested minor revisions, one suggested major revisions, one provided two lines of unhelpful suggestions, and the other two each provided three or four suggestions for revisions. In the end, the decision was rejection

(0) Thank | 长安诗岚

5.03 Submission, 6.01 Received reviewers' feedback, 5 reviewers, three with positive comments and two with negative feedback. 7.28 First revision, responded with over 30 pages... 8.29 Second round of reviewer comments, minor revisions requested along with language edits. 9.27 Second revision. 10.7 Editor requested format adjustments. 10.8 Third revision, implemented reviewer feedback which was helpful and required thorough editing, acknowledged by the reviewers. Efficient editing process

(0) Thank | Jessie Hodge

The review process is fast, but the language requirements are high

(0) Thank | 东京千霜

Submission on February 19th; around the 23rd was the status of finding reviewers, forgot what it was called, and only became "under review" on March 5th; major revisions on March 29th; revised on April 23rd; minor revisions on May 18th, addressing a few small issues from the reviewers; revised on May 21st; on May 22nd, editor asked for language improvements, or else it could be rejected; revised on May 26th, and accepted. The journal seems quite fast, with efficient editors, and strict language and formatting requirements

(0) Thank | 马尔科姆哈灵顿

2019.1.31 First submission
2019.2.16 Feedback received, major revision
2019.4.14 Second submission
Due to the Chinese New Year, I couldn't go back to school, so the response was delayed.
The main suggestions from the three reviewers were to add a test and modify some analysis.
2019.5.1 Feedback from the second round of review was positive, the reviewers approved.
The editor asked for some formatting changes and a language check.
2019.5.14 Third submission
2019.5.15 Accepted, many thanks to the editor and the reviewers. I was very nervous for my first article

(0) Thank | 一条小琪睿

It took 4 months from submission to acceptance, with 4 reviewers and 5 rounds of revisions, finally it was accepted. Thank you to the editors and reviewers for their careful editing and assistance

(0) Thank | 明冠以莲

received at editorial office          14 aug 2018
article revised                                 11 nov 2018
article accepted for publication   16 nov 2018

(0) Thank | 西风傲菡

Review Speed: 1.0 Experience Sharing: On May 20, 2018, I received reviewer comments during the Dragon Boat Festival. Both reviewers were good, but my own level was too low. After making revisions, my paper was rejected because the improvements were not significant. Very frustrating

(0) Thank | 咏春承嗣

2018.5.20 The review was received during the Dragon Boat Festival. Both reviewers were good, and their level was too small. After the revision, they were rejected because they were not improved.Crying halo

(0) Thank | 多浩

Journal Homepage URL: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find ... ription#description

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Bullish, if it rises a little more tomorrow, it may break through 3 points

(0) Thank | 凌霄高洁