Submitted to PLOS Biology and rejected, resubmitted here. Accepted in less than half a month

(0) 讚！ | kc06552

After this year, our mentor also said that we will no longer consider the ranking of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, but instead we will look at the JCR ranking. These people are useless and talk nonsense!

(0) 讚！ | 苏绫人

What is the Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China (ISTIC)? Insect researchers should collectively boycott this kind of rubbish academic institution.

(2) 讚！ | 顺子

In the field of entomology, it is a highly recognized international journal!

(6) 讚！ | 知秋614

Not bad, it was rejected within a week, very quickly rejected.

(6) 讚！ | Hzzyu

Research object/experimental conditions/some experimental treatment/experimental conclusion, etc

(0) 讚！ | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

The title of the paper should be concise and not too long. The shorter the better, as long as it accurately reflects and clearly expresses the most important specific content, try to avoid unnecessary words, and delete extra words as much as possible. Short paper titles generally have a higher citation rate

(0) 讚！ | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

What to do if the article title is too long?

(0) 讚！ | 魂魄彦露

What points should be included in the article title?

(0) 讚！ | Darlene Pepys

I have had the privilege of publishing several articles in this publication. Overall, I feel that the review process is reasonably fast, usually within a month, which is not considered slow. The reviewers are mostly experts in the field, so their comments are very objective and I haven't come across any random or irrelevant opinions. This journal is a top-tier publication in the field of entomology, with a focus on basic research. In the early years, it published many biochemistry-related papers, but now there are more molecular biology-related papers. The impact factor has remained around 3.5 for many years, making it the most recognized research journal in the international entomology field. However, it seems that its classification in the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) is not favorable, mainly because it is categorized under the field of molecular biology, which is a bit unfair. This is because the level of insect research cannot be compared to that of molecular biology research in higher animals. For articles related to insect molecular biology, if they cannot be submitted to high-impact comprehensive journals like PNAS, it is recommended to consider submitting them to this journal.

(8) 讚！ | lOVEcb

Review speed: 3.0 Experience sharing: This journal is widely recognized in the field of entomology, and is considered one of the best insect research journals

(0) 讚！ | 深渊逸翔

This journal is a generally recognized journal in the field of entomology, and it should be considered one of the best journals in insect research.

(0) 讚！ | Chilo

Review speed: 3.0 sharing experience: My submission experience: 10/17/10 submit, with editor 10/17/13 (about) under review 18/1/7 still under review, it's been too long so I sent a reminder once 18/1/12 still under review, reply said it will be reviewed soon 18/1/18 revision given two months, 6 comments, one is to improve English writing, the rest are about the experimental design of the article, no minor issues were mentioned. 18/3/14 revision submit, with editor 18/3/29 under review 18/4/12 reviews this time the reviewer is basically satisfied, and then brought up 35 minor issues (didn't expect so many details this time, it seems that there were too many minor issues the first time, causing the reviewer to not want to pick them out. I felt good about my first review). One month was given for revisions 18/4/16 revision submit, with editor 18/4/28 accept I feel that the journal is quite serious about the review process, but the nearly three-month review cycle for my first review is unusual. I see that the average review cycle for other articles in the journal is one month for the first time. Also, I feel that the journal likes articles that combine certain insect physiological significance. I study insect neuropeptides and their mediated signaling pathways, but lack insect phenotypes. My initial draft also did not have specific insect physiological data, so the reviewer asked me to supplement it, especially some key pathways that were mostly done with cell lines. I did supplement some, but not very well, and finally put some supplemented data in the comments for the reviewers, but since I wanted to put them in another article, I did not include them in the supplemental materials and explained it. It seems that the reviewers acquiesced. So, in fact, the article still has loopholes, and I can only say that the pathways provided will serve as a reference for future research

(0) 讚！ | 筑阳彦森

Submitting articles to magazines is quite challenging. If you want to submit an article to this magazine, you'll need to put in extra effort. The magazine pays close attention to the grammar of the articles, so it's recommended to have a company polish your article if possible. Hopefully, this will be helpful for those of you who plan to submit articles in the future

(0) 讚！ | 稻妻古韵

Strong language requirements, high requirements for rigor. Usually requested additional experiments. Professional editing is recommended.

(0) 讚！ | Anonymous

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission acceptance rate: 25.0
Experience sharing: relatively novel, gene function 07-Nov-2013 submission 26-Nov-2013 first review, major revision 30-Dec-2013 major revision submission 28-Jan-2014 second review, minor revision 31-Jan-2014 minor revision submission 18-Feb-2014 acceptance

(0) 讚！ | 凌霄高洁

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission acceptance rate: 75.0
Experience sharing: Submitted on December 10, 2013, accepted on March 24, 2014. The first review took 20 days, with revisions for two months. The second review took approximately 10 days, and it was accepted directly after revisions. The reviews were very thorough and straightforward, but as long as the experiment was conducted properly, there were no issues

(0) 讚！ | 凌霄高洁

Review Speed: 2.0 | Submission Hit Rate: 50.0 
Experience Sharing: This journal has a very strict review process. My previous submission was rejected, and I would like to share my submission experience here. 

First Submission: 
Dec 15, 2012 Submitted; Dec 28, 2012 Under Review; Jan 23, 2013 Completed - Reject. 
The reviewers provided professional opinions, with one recommending major revisions and the other recommending rejection. The editor ultimately decided to reject the article due to several major unresolved issues. However, the editor recognized that the research direction of the article aligned well with the journal's focus. Therefore, we were given the opportunity to address the issues raised (about 10 major issues), make revisions, and resubmit as a new manuscript. 

After nearly half a year, we conducted additional experiments in accordance with the reviewers' requirements and made thorough revisions before submitting for the second time. 

Second Submission: 
Apr 25, 2013 Submitted; May 08, 2013 Under Review; Jun 26, 2013 Minor revision; 
The reviewers provided overall professional feedback, including detailed suggestions on grammar and other aspects. Some questions arose due to differences between the peer reviewers and the species we were studying. They also showed curiosity about certain experimental techniques, such as how the images were captured. We provided detailed responses to each question and included a simple PCR experiment image. The revised manuscript was accepted two weeks after submission. 

Jul 26, 2013 Revised manuscript submitted; Jul 28, With editor; Aug 07, Completed accept

(0) 讚！ | 凌霄高洁

Review speed: 3.0 | Submission hit rate: 75.0
Sharing experience: Latest IF 3.234 (2012), was once on par with IMB and even surpassed it for a period of time. A good journal in entomology, representing the forefront of entomological research, requiring the resolution of a small problem. The total number of figures and tables in the entire article is similar to one or two FIGs in CELL. Relatively easy to get accepted

(0) 讚！ | 凌霄高洁

Review speed: 3.0 | Submission acceptance rate: 25.0
Experience sharing: IMB is catching up fast, the top position is not guaranteed

(0) 讚！ | 凌霄高洁

I feel that the peer review process is very strict. The first review took about two months (over 70 days for me). Fortunately, aside from grammar issues, only about a dozen questions were raised. After answering them and going through a second review, the article was accepted, taking almost four months in total

(0) 讚！ | 香风寻山

Personal feeling review is very strict, the first trial will take about two months (my 70 days), but fortunately, there is no grammar problem, more than a dozen questions, after the answer, after reviewAfter receiving, nearly four months before and after.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

Are insects still good? Will the price rise next year?

(0) 讚！ | 凌霄高洁

The score is increasing rapidly, suddenly breaking through the 4-point mark

(0) 讚！ | 凌霄高洁

Looking up, will the price go up again next year?

(0) 讚！ | 凌霄高洁