Review speed: 1.0 | Submission hit rate: 50.0 
Research focus: Biomarkers; Experience sharing in cardiac surgery: As the official publication of the Canadian Cardiovascular Association, I personally think it is worth submitting to the CJC. The first submission received feedback exactly one month later, with major revisions required. Both reviewers provided numerous suggestions covering various aspects, including ethics, statistics, definitions, methods, etc., all of which were pertinent and not meant to be difficult. The editorial board provided a 3-month revision period, and after investing a lot of effort, the revisions were completed with just two weeks remaining. After resubmission, feedback was received within one month, this time requiring minor revisions and an additional reviewer. Although it was minor revisions, all the issues still needed to be supplemented with analysis and literature review for better responses. It took another two weeks to respond to the feedback. After the minor revisions, the article was accepted within four days. I wish everyone a successful submission process.

(0) 讚！ | 书易Sama

Submitted on 20240514 and still under review as of 20240614.

(0) 讚！ | 璃月淳美

Please translate the following paragraph into English and Japanese, and title them respectively as ":" and ":"

(0) 讚！ | 风芹小哥哥

How about it, did I make a good pitch?

(0) 讚！ | 葵花锦华

How many authors can there be for this journal article? Can it be co-authored?

(0) 讚！ | 碧水蒙蒙

The relationship between the results of this study and relevant theories; the limitations or shortcomings of your research; the significance and practical value of this research in real-life situations; suggestions for future research

(0) 讚！ | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

Given the diversity and complexity of biology, it is acceptable for different results to emerge and be published, as scientific research itself allows and encourages questioning, supplementing, and improving existing knowledge, and even overturning it. When writing a paper, we need to focus on two main strategies: presenting materials and methods and results truthfully, especially when they differ from others', emphasizing and detailing them; in the discussion section, not avoiding contradictions, comparing similarities and differences with previous research, and attempting to provide reasonable and effective explanations

(0) 讚！ | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

How to handle it when my discussion does not match the results of the previous article?

(0) 讚！ | 陶宜三岁啦

What can be discussed in a discussion?

(0) 讚！ | 深渊兴业

Friends, does anyone know if this magazine only has one first author, or can it be shared?

(0) 讚！ | Chloe Crichton

Review Speed: 1.0 | Submission Acceptance Rate: 25.0
Experience Sharing: The editor is very efficient, rejecting the submission within a few days

(0) 讚！ | 凝梅小郎君

Does this magazine only accept clinical articles? Or does it focus more on clinical content?

(0) 讚！ | 高兴来了

Do you accept contributions? Is there a page fee?

(0) 讚！ | 奉天宇荫

A major revision and a minor revision are done in each round of review, which takes about one month. The review process is very detailed and raises many overlooked issues

(0) 讚！ | 奉天书萱

One major revision and one minor revision, it lasted one month for each round of review. Very meticulous. Many neglected issues were raised.

(0) 讚！ | adai

Review Speed: 1.0 Experience Sharing: Submitted on April 19, first review returned on May 16; revised on May 20, accepted on May 24. Two reviewers raised some very simple questions, basically not much of an issue; this may be due to my previous submissions to IJC and AJC, where a total of 8 reviewers criticized, and then I made careful revisions accordingly; in addition, for another journal (European Radiology), I truly appreciate that reviewer, I submitted another article written from the same database / although it was rejected, one of the reviewers reviewed very carefully and raised many issues, very nice, and I also made modifications in this article. So, repeatedly submitting, the majority of the opinions from top journals are still relatively good, combined with revisions, will definitely help improve the article

(0) 讚！ | 晨风初桃

Review speed: 2.0 | Submission hit rate: 50.0 
Sharing experience: Submitted on 11-02, first round of revisions on 12-21 (minor revisions), revised on 1-13, second round of revisions on 2-13 (minor revisions), revised on 2-20, accepted on 2-21

It was my second time submitting to this journal, and the process went smoothly. The editor was very nice and not difficult to work with. The feedback from reviewers was very constructive. When revising, it's important to try to find evidence to support your points, as reviewers may use viewpoints from newer literature to challenge you

(0) 讚！ | 桂枝酱吖

This is a competitive journal with strict formatting, language and scientific requirements. Check the aim and scope of the journal before submitting to ensure that you don’t waste your time.

(0) 讚！ | Garwood

Review Speed: 1.0
Experience Sharing: It is indeed a journal from the second district, with quite strict requirements. Any lack of rigor will be pointed out

(0) 讚！ | 是迎蕊吖

Are you in clinical or basic research?

(0) 讚！ | 通幽凯风

Congratulations, it's been 10 days since I submitted my paper and it's still under review. Can you provide contact information for further communication... 138****0985 (no screen name) 2018-08-24 Posted: Research direction: Myocardial infarction; Review time: about 1 month SCI (2016): 4.403 SCI (2015): 3.112 Submitted on 4.9, major revision in 20 days for the first review, a total of 21 questions from two reviewers and the editor. Minor revision for the second review in 20 days, reviewer two and editor had no issues, but reviewer one raised 10 questions -_-||. Minor revision for the third review in 20 days, making changes to individual sentences, accepted on 8.17 two days after submission. Overall, the reviewers' questions were very professional, the feedback greatly improved the article, and the editor was nice. I hope this journal continues to improve!

(0) 讚！ | 通幽凯风

Review Speed: 1.0
Experience Sharing: 4.9
Submission, first review took 20 days for major revisions, with a total of 21 questions from two reviewers and an editor. After revisions, the second review took another 20 days for minor revisions, with reviewer two and the editor saying no issues, but reviewer one raising 10 more questions -_-||. After another round of revisions, the third review also took 20 days for minor adjustments, with changes made to a few sentences. Submitted on 8.17, accepted. Overall, reviewers were professional and provided valuable feedback for improving the article, and the editor had a nice attitude. Hope this journal continues to improve!

(0) 讚！ | 北国伟杰

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission hit rate: 25.0 Experience sharing: 4.27 Submitted on the 5th of May, received a rejection letter, with a lot of comments, but they were not very professional. It's still quite difficult to get published in that journal

(0) 讚！ | 岭南曼华

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission success rate: 25.0
Experience sharing: 4 hours for rejection, editors are very friendly, focus on the originality and innovation of the articles, a very good magazine

(0) 讚！ | Ogden Christ

The clinical observation trial article on myocardial infarction was successfully submitted on April 1st, and the article was assigned a number on April 2nd

(0) 讚！ | 宗室岳阳