Submitted on the same day, rejected on the same day. The review speed is impressive. The reason for rejection is that the journal is not suitable.

(0) 讚！ | WEIG

Hello teacher, I received the article 7 days ago and received an email requesting the copyright transfer agreement to be filled out, but it has been two weeks since then and I still have not received the proof email

(0) 讚！ | 努力啊大运珊

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission acceptance rate: 50.0
Experience sharing: I would like to ask everyone, how long does it usually take for proofreading after acceptance by this journal?

(0) 讚！ | 重阳绮丽

Research Objective, Process, and Results: 
The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of technology on student learning outcomes. We conducted a survey of 500 students and analyzed the data to determine whether students who used technology in the classroom achieved higher grades than those who did not. The results showed a significant correlation between technology use and academic performance, with students who used technology scoring on average 10% higher on exams.

Discussion: 
Our findings are in line with previous studies that have shown technology can enhance learning outcomes. For example, Smith et al. (2018) found that students who used educational apps had higher levels of engagement and retention of information. This supports the idea that integrating technology into the classroom can lead to improved student performance.

Contribution and Significance: 
The results of this study contribute to the existing literature on technology in education by providing empirical evidence of its positive effects on student learning outcomes. This highlights the importance of incorporating technology into teaching practices to support student success.

Future Research Directions: 
Moving forward, it will be important to further investigate the specific types of technology and teaching methods that are most effective in improving student performance. Additionally, exploring how technology can be used to address learning gaps and promote equity in education should be a focus of future research efforts

(0) 讚！ | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

Unlike the writing of the discussion section and introduction, the structure of the discussion section is like an inverted funnel, expanding from small to large. Starting from the rationale behind each research result, anomalies, and the underlying principles, a detailed analysis is gradually conducted. After laying the groundwork, the main conclusions of the paper can naturally be introduced for discussion, followed by a broader analysis highlighting the importance/significance/generalizability/application value of the research

(0) 讚！ | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

What is the difference between an introduction and a discussion?

(0) 讚！ | 魂魄彦露

Discuss how to write?

(0) 讚！ | Oswald Edie

Hello, could you please share the submission format for this magazine? I couldn't find it. Thank you very much

(0) 讚！ | 桑迪贝西

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission success rate: 25.0
Experience sharing: Submitted for 1 day, rejected

(0) 讚！ | 通幽紫山

Review speed: 1.0
Emphasis on research direction: Infection experience sharing: 3 days is not suitable. Rejected

(0) 讚！ | 梦雅小姐姐

Excuse me, senior male/female fellow apprentices, how long does it take for this journal to review? Thank you.

(0) 讚！ | youngjack

Review Speed: 1.0
Experience Sharing: Can senior fellow students please tell me how long it usually takes for this journal to review manuscripts? Thank you

(0) 讚！ | 帕特里夏康拉德

I don't know what's going on, but this journal seems to be getting more and more diluted. It might be because they are trying to publish more articles, which is a bit unfortunate

(0) 讚！ | 黛比霍伊尔

I don’t know what’s going on, but this journal has a trend of getting more and more mediocre through the years. Maybe it’s caused by more manuscripts being submitted? Who knows? Now this journal is subpar.

(0) 讚！ | Quaid

Review Speed: 1.0 | Acceptance Rate: 50.0
Experience Sharing: Submitted a research on hospital infection target monitoring in May 2015. Received major revisions in about a month. The reviewers were very professional and strict, they raised many questions and pointed out many sentences with grammar issues. Very admirable! I revised very carefully and wrote a Response Letter of about 10 pages, with very appropriate responses. The revised version was accepted the next day~

(0) 讚！ | 凤凰院士魁

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission hit rate: 50.0
Experience sharing: Submitted on December 6, 2013, sent for external review 2 days later, received major revision suggestions after about 3 weeks, expert opinions were not very sharp. After revisions, the editor provided minor revision suggestions again, which were accepted 2 days after submitting the revisions. The entire process took 3 months, unaffected by Christmas and New Year holidays. The article must be innovative, well-organized, and meet acceptable writing standards. Consider submitting to AJIC for hospital infection control

(0) 讚！ | 一条小碧秋

For the first submission, the initial perspective of the article was poorly written and was harshly criticized by two reviewers; however, the intention was considered good, leading to major revisions made by the editor. After adding additional data, I basically revised it myself without seeking professional editing services. The editor at the time was very helpful, and although I struggled with a simple issue, we managed to resolve it after a couple of exchanges. Personally, I feel that editors appreciate articles with innovative ideas. Despite being an SCI-E journal, may I ask how this journal is viewed in the field of infection control?

(0) 讚！ | 太山长生

This journal is now rated 2.5, quite an improvement from last year. Is there a chance to get it to 3 points?

(0) 讚！ | 凌霄高洁

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission hit rate: 75.0
Experience sharing: A classic journal in the field of infection control

(0) 讚！ | 凌霄高洁

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission acceptance rate: 50.0
Experience sharing: I submitted to this journal once and it was accepted. The journal has high expectations for writing. After the initial submission, there was no response for 3 weeks. I emailed the editor in chief to inquire and received a reply the next day stating that the editors were reviewing the text and content and would respond soon. Two weeks later, I emailed again and was asked to revise the manuscript. The revisions were mainly focused on the writing, with the editor making changes to some sentences and emphasizing the importance of language work. It took about 1 month for language editing. I was preparing to re-submit when I received a letter from the editorial office asking if I was revising or preparing to submit again. After re-submitting, I received a revision notice in about 3 weeks. Among the three reviewers, two praised the manuscript as well-written and original, and provided some suggestions for modifications. The third reviewer had simpler feedback, asking for a detailed explanation of one specific term. After careful revisions for a month, I re-submitted and received an acceptance notice on the third day. Lesson learned: A good idea is the key! Be sure to address each reviewer's questions carefully

(0) 讚！ | 东海力勤