The review speed is average. It focuses on clinical direction, and hardly accepts articles on preclinical research. The publication fee is about 15,000 RMB. The level of the reviewers is ordinary.

(2) Thank | lssds

There were very strict format requirements on the journal, and the efficiency was very high. The first review lasted for 1 month and major revisions were recommended. The revised manuscript was submitted two and a half months later. The second review lasted for 21 days. Minor revisions were recommended. The revised manuscript was submitted 20 days later and it was accepted the next day.

(1) Thank | Peggy

Requirements for this journal are not as high as others in the field, and the editorial staff is very professional and helpful. You can actually ask questions and receive timely responses! The fee is $50 per page.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

I submitted in February, went through the review score, and now have AE recommendations. It has been almost 3 weeks, how long did everyone else wait to receive a notification?

(0) Thank | poppy1104

The manuscript rejected by it has been accepted by a journal with a score higher than it, retaining all of my original text. It was concise and efficient, received minor revisions, and was accepted in less than a month. I can only say the difference is clear.

(2) Thank | shanzhenxieqi

The worst submission experience, a review article that has been professionally polished, only sent to 2 reviewers, one of whom criticized everything, the other fully affirmed. Finally, the associate editor unilaterally inclined towards the first reviewer's opinion, not even giving a chance to revise, wasting a month of time. And strict restrictions on word count, including not exceeding 5000 words, which review article does not have one or two thousand words of references, and all kinds of format requirements are bizarre. Everyone, please avoid getting into this kind of journal again!

(2) Thank | abcdcba

Part2: Quality control in the process is also lacking. Not only are the issues not clearly stated at once, requiring multiple revisions of the formatting, but also the statements are inconsistent. For example, it was mentioned once to include author contributions in the declaration, and later it was said to list them separately. In addition, the requirements for word count and images are inconsistent. Finally, this journal has strict limits on word count and number of references. For a review submission, no more than 80 references are allowed, and the total word count (including references, figures, statements, title page, etc.) must not exceed 5000. I already have over 2000 words with 74 references. This means that if you have many references, you can only write up to 2000 words. What can you write in a review of 2000 words? When I checked the journal's website, I found a recent review article with around 7000 words and an excessive number of references. But others can exceed the limits while you cannot. You have to follow the requirements. However, the instructions from this journal are unclear. The submission guidelines on the website say it's okay to exceed the word limit, just mention it in the cover letter. It didn't specify how much you can exceed. But after submission, the tone changed, saying no more than 500 words. Why didn't you mention it earlier? Can't you modify the submission guidelines? I wasted four months on this journal for nothing and feel like dying. I will never submit again, especially review articles, as it's infuriating

(0) Thank | shanzhenxieqi

The associate editor I was assigned to was particularly disgusting. After submitting my manuscript, the reviewer gave some minor comments, but the associate editor did not provide any feedback for minor revisions. I responded very seriously later, but after waiting for a long time, the associate editor said that I did not fully comply with the reviewer's comments, without any other explanation, and requested a revision. The reality is that the reviewer misunderstood and I had explained very seriously before. I had to make modifications again, this time following the reviewer's comments completely, but after waiting for a long time again, the associate editor sent back comments saying that he did not mean that, and brought up many suggestions that could have been mentioned in the previous two rounds of revisions, as well as some unreasonable suggestions, and demanded major revisions. We made serious modifications and provided responses again, including redrawing Figure 1 and making many modifications according to this associate editor's suggestions. However, the associate editor claimed that there was an error in the orientation of Figure 1, which would have a "fatal impact" on readers, and rejected the manuscript solely based on this reason, without providing any further explanation. I later carefully reviewed and checked a lot of literature and materials, confirming that the figure was indeed correct, but unfortunately, the manuscript had already been rejected

(0) Thank | shanzhenxieqi

The reviewer's comments are very pertinent. The first review took one and a half months, minor revisions took two months, and acceptance was received three weeks later.

(0) Thank | 海滨

I feel that I have nothing to do.The format is in accordance with the submission requirementsGenerally not card you

(0) Thank | 考拉

has a higher format requirement for the article.

(1) Thank | Anonymous

Received a reply after 23 days of submission in December 2010. After two months of minor repair, I returned to the journal and accepted it within one week. It lasted for 100 days, and it was quite smooth.

(0) Thank | Anonymous