Second review: 2019-11-7, a revision has been submitted; 2019-11-9, Awaiting Reviewer Selection; 2019-11-11, Reviewers Assigned; 2019-11-26, Awaiting Reviewer Selection; 2019-12-7, Awaiting Reviewer Scores; 2020-1-1, Awaiting Decision; 2020-1-15, Accept. Summary: The editor-in-chief is very good. Although the format is wrong in the middle, the editor-in-chief is very patient. This is the first paper I submitted. It’s still very promising to be accepted if revisions are made properly.

(4) Thank | 匿名02

Only 500 characters to be commented each time, then I will write separately. First review: 2019-4-12, Submitted; 2019-4-15, Awaiting admin processing; 2019-4-16, Awaiting AE Processing; 2019-4-24, Reviewers Assigned; 2019-4-25, Awaiting Reviewer Selection, Reviewers Assigned; 2019-5-11, Awaiting Reviewer Selection; 2019-5-16, Reviewers Assigned; 2019-5-20, Awaiting Reviewer Scores; 2019-8-12, Awaiting Decision; 2019-8-19, Major Revision.

(5) Thank | 匿名02

Roughly talk about the review time point, for your reference. 06-Nov-2018 submission (in fact, the submission time should be much earlier, but because changing the double column to a single column in the middle. It is recommended that the submission must be formatted as single column. Do not waste your time on it); 06-Dec-2018 Under review; 28-Feb-2019 Major revision required; 05-Mar-2019 Revised submission; 06-Apr-2019 Reviewer's comments returned, but it has not been sent to me; 22-Apr-2019 Awaiting Decision. Hope it goes well!

(15) Thank | 控制菜鸟

Three months after submission, the journal told me that the paper can be accepted, but it must be carefully revised according to the reviewer's comments. I was too lazy; I received the review comments on March 15th but did not resubmit till July 5th (huh, huh, truly a major revision). I received the decision 1.5 months after the resubmission and the paper was accepted. The publication period of this journal is extremely long. Online publication is about 2 months after acceptance, but actual publication on paper is about one and a half years after acceptance, and the paper is only searchable after acceptance. Therefore, do not recommend researchers who need the publication for graduation to submit here.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Edit pure shabi.

(0) Thank | hwq

Submitted on August 30, 2024.
On January 20, 2025, two reviewers provided 14 comments. One reviewer pointed out only minor formatting issues, while the other reviewer seemed to have not read the article at all, with two or three comments not related to the content. The reviewers suggested minor revisions, but the editor rejected the submission. Please be cautious when submitting, as the review process lasted nearly five months, with the reviewers' comments being largely ignored and the editor's rejection seeming arbitrary and unilateral. Proceed with caution.

(0) Thank | hwq

A couple of days.

(0) Thank | 浮生若梦-

Hello, during the first instance, it was "Awaiting Decision". How long have you been waiting?

(0) Thank | 迪士驾到

2024.09.18 Submission
2024.10.24 Major revision
2024.11.15 Rework
2025.02.07 Conditional acceptance
2025.02.09 Rework
2025.02.10 Return for modification of reference formatting
2025.02.11 Resubmission
2025.02.18 Acceptance

(0) Thank | 浮生若梦-

Sage has its own Harvard template, my question is

(0) Thank | 汉室魔救

Please revise the first review comments. After submission, I was told that the reference format was incorrect and that Harvard referencing format was required. However, the journal's submission website requires the Sage Vancouver format. I don't know what to do, as I haven't seen any articles published by this journal using the Harvard format.

(1) Thank | 汉室魔救

This is the most disgusting journal for me. The first review found two reviewers, their opinions were very mild, and they suggested major revisions. In the second review, the two reviewers had no objections, but the editor found another new reviewer, who provided seven comments, six of which were incorrect and used professional terminology that could not be understood. The editor then rejected the paper.
Throughout this whole process, what disgusts me the most is the editor. Everyone, please be cautious when submitting manuscripts.

(0) Thank | 予以繁星

Sure, I have received the notification, thank you.

(0) Thank | HITbobo

Sure, you can send an email to remind the editor.

(0) Thank | zzzqwq

2024.10.23 Awaiting Reviewer Scores. Up until today (2024.12.6), I would like to ask everyone if this review process speed is normal.

(0) Thank | 大胆去做

I also got rejected for not meeting the theme.

(0) Thank | .....

Excuse me, I accepted on October 2nd and I still haven't received the proofreading. Is this normal? Have you sent an email to urge them?

(0) Thank | HITbobo

The first draft was rejected after revision, the reason given was that the manuscript did not meet the requirements of the journal.

(0) Thank | 小北5875

I would like to ask, the editor sent me, "As per style, citations should be labeled in TeX files. In the subject article, citations are given without the label." Even after I made the changes, it is still incorrect. Can anyone please tell me how to properly write citations in LaTeX for references?

(0) Thank | Sruan

Hello, may I ask how long it will take to proofread after receiving it? It's been almost a month and I haven't received any notification yet.

(0) Thank | HITbobo

How long until you can go online?

(0) Thank | Wrigley

Where can I find out if this journal offers preprints?

(0) Thank | .....

I am in the same situation as you now, brother! The second reviewer had no issues, but the deputy editor raised a question, so it has to be revised and sent back. We have been inviting reviewers continuously! It's really scary, like a tragedy.

(0) Thank | 帅哥111

This journal is really disgusting. A trashy 4th tier, with 5 reviewers for the first round, the comments were neither here nor there, so I reluctantly made the revisions. The second round reviewers said there were no issues and all agreed to accept it, but the associate editor said the writing style was too similar to my previously published papers and main references (plagiarism check was fine), so it needed major revisions. The third round reviewer said the methods were outdated and lacked innovation, and rejected it outright. Fine, fine, fine. The first and second round reviewers must have been half asleep, unable to see the innovation, yet you dare to call yourself a 4th tier journal? Disgusting journal, I will never consider submitting to it again. Mark my words!

(0) Thank | \Sum

Can you please go back and check the third review? The status has changed to inviting reviewers. What's going on?

(0) Thank | 帅哥111