The journal's 2011 IF value was 3.608. The manuscript I submitted was a discussion about surgical techniques. I feel that the initial review is very pertinent, and the readability of the article was significantly improved after reviewing the manuscript. The second revision was mainly related to the modification of individual small details. At 2 weeks after the revisions were made, the article was accepted. Overall, the journal's review is quite responsible and efficient.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Research focus: Sharing of thoracic surgery experiences: After revision, it may be required to transfer to a different journal, which can be very challenging.

(0) Thank | Beverly Kennan

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission acceptance rate: 5.0 
Research focus: Thoracic surgery
Clinical experience sharing: The review process took 20 days, with over 50 comments from 4 reviewers and around 10 from the editor. After revisions, it was sent back to be considered for publication in a different journal, which presented a significant challenge.

(0) Thank | Beverly Kennan

Send an email to the editor using the communication mailbox

(0) Thank | 混元晗蕾

Hello, I have encountered a similar situation. May I ask how you rebutted it?

(0) Thank | 排云慕悦

Review Speed: 2.0 | Submission Success Rate: 25.0
Experience Sharing: After revising twice in over three months, my paper was rejected after minor revisions and I had to resubmit. It was very frustrating. I submitted a rebuttal, and after three more rounds of revisions over the next week, my paper was finally accepted. It was a very tumultuous and painful experience

(0) Thank | 混元晗蕾

May I ask how long the second review took for you, as I am in a similar situation? I have also submitted surgery videos and a video abstract. The manuscript is being reviewed by four reviewers, a formatting editor, a chief editor, and a statistics editor

(0) Thank | 南风天荣

Review speed: 1.0 | Acceptance rate: 5.0
Experience sharing: I submitted a multi-center retrospective study, and two out of the three reviewers showed strong interest and gave high praise. They suggested some revisions before acceptance. The third reviewer also raised some questions but did not express rejection. However, the editor rejected the manuscript directly

(0) Thank | 碧桃静逸

Latest comments

(0) Thank | Earl Hoover

Updated: On April 26, 2022, after two months of major revisions, the second submission was still rejected. The journal has strict requirements, and the rejection was due to experimental design

(0) Thank | 北海彦会

It seems that every time the comments from the reviewers are returned, the status of the journal will be changed back to "with editor"

(0) Thank | 北海彦会

The evolving technology section that was submitted on January 28th is nearing a total of 200 allocated numbers, and the external review process was completed on February 8th. It feels a bit cold, but the progress was very quick

(0) Thank | 北海彦会

The innovativeness of an article may be assessed by searching for key words

(0) Thank | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

Review Speed: 1.0
Experience Sharing: Submitted a basic article and the first review was completed in 14 days. Feeling a bit discouraged now

(0) Thank | 彩云公子

It might happen

(0) Thank | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

How do reviewers use keywords for reviewing?

(0) Thank | Darlene Pepys

Will the reviewers use the keywords I provide to search for novelty?

(0) Thank | 破戒阳平

2021/10/28 Submission-With an Editor
2021/11/01 Out of review
2021/11/18 Ready for editor
2021/11/22 Editor To Complete
2021/11/24 With an editor-Does anyone know why it is back to "with editor" after the external review?

(0) Thank | 碧水承望

Do I need to submit a video during the first round of review? Or is it only required when the paper is confirmed for revision or acceptance?

(0) Thank | Espresso多

Yes, JTCVS is very difficult now

(0) Thank | 慈悲天琪

I am looking forward to meeting you next week

(0) Thank | Merry Malory

Is the rejection rate for major revisions to JTCVS pretty high?

(0) Thank | 一条小痴瑶

Very unfriendly

(0) Thank | 东京丹兰

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission hit rate: 25.0
Experience sharing: Clinical cases in cardiovascular surgery, submitted for review on the same day, first review came back after 15 days, rejected 2 days later. Experts 1 and 3 raised a total of 23 questions, half of which were constructive, but both felt that the comparative methods were problematic. Expert 2 only wrote 3 lines with a total of 60 words, which were quite sarcastic and critical. In recent years, JTCVS has become much stricter than before, feeling overall unfriendly to Chinese authors

(0) Thank | 孤云迎波

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission hit rate: 25.0
Experience sharing: The webpage crashed while operating on the PC. I don't know if my personal experience was uploaded. The review was very fast, less than a week. It's free, but rejection is required after major revisions. The rejection reasons are very formal and do not clearly indicate specific areas of concern. The opinions of Reviewer 2 are very fair. They replied in detail for two consecutive times, from punctuation spelling to suggestions and opinions. It's been over five minutes now. Compared to a 3.6 internal journal rejection in the past, at least they can provide a lot of feedback

(0) Thank | 暴风东芳