Submission deadline by the end of December 2022;
Notification for major revisions by the end of March 2023;
Revision deadline by the end of April 2023;
Direct acceptance notification by the end of May 2023.
Comment from Expert 1: All issues have been resolved, thank you;
Comment from Expert 2: Successfully resolved all issues, great job!

(0) 讚！ | 帅子

Do you need to provide original data?

(0) 讚！ | 留云济深

Two months for major revisions. The processing speed and editing response speed are relatively fast. The journal is quite well-known in the industry. The difficulty is not small. You can try submitting some innovative articles. Overall, it is a very good veteran journal

(0) 讚！ | weibos

When explaining your innovative points, it is important to focus on describing the shortcomings of past research, and clearly and comprehensively explain your solution ideas. Innovation requires the use of introduction techniques, so it is beneficial to write more content that is advantageous to yourself. In order to highlight the innovation of this research, it is necessary to select from numerous citations the aspects of the research that highlight its differences and characteristics. For example: (1) timing issues; (2) research methodology issues; (3) research area issues; (4) uncertainty; (5) propose your own hypothesis for verification

(0) 讚！ | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

There is usually no word limit, but it should be proportional

(0) 讚！ | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

Introduction, how many words is usually written?

(0) 讚！ | Darlene Pepys

How is the innovation of the article reflected in the introduction?

(0) 讚！ | 平原文波

Is there a layout fee, and how much is it?

(0) 讚！ | 巴蜀孤容

Review speed: 3.0 | Submission acceptance rate: 50.0
Research focus: Psychopharmacology; Basic experimental experience sharing: Submitted twice, both accepted. The first submission was slower, submitted in mid-December, returned for revision in February of the following year, accepted in early April, online at the end of June, and published in August. The second submission was faster, submitted at the end of July, returned for revision in September, accepted in early October, online at the end of October, and published in January of the following year

(0) 讚！ | 东京冰可

The first round of review was sent out at the end of February and took about two months. Both reviewers requested major revisions. The revisions were completed and responses to reviewers' questions were sent in early May. The second round of review was quick, taking less than 20 days. One reviewer was very thorough and raised some more questions, requesting minor revisions. The revised manuscript was resubmitted in early June and accepted about a week later

(0) 讚！ | 韦陀雅可

The article was submitted at the end of February. It took about two months for the first review. There were two reviewers, who required major revisions. I revised the article in the early May and replied the questions of the reviewers. The second review was fast, which took less than 20 days. One reviewer was very careful, who raised some questions again, and I was required to make minor revisions. I revised the article and responded the questions, and resubmitted it in the early June. It was accepted in about a week.

(2) 讚！ | soinger

I only submitted once, in April, and received revisions a month later. It took me a long time to make the revisions myself, so I didn't return the manuscript to the editor-in-chief until November, and it was promptly accepted for a second review. I conducted clinical research on genetic pharmacology, with two peer reviewers - one presumably a physician from the United States and the other presumably a researcher from a non-English speaking country. Their different perspectives led to divergent opinions, but ultimately the editor-in-chief decided to accept my article. In general, all SCI journals have language requirements, and it is advisable to have a native speaker edit the language, as poor language skills can give the impression of low article quality. Many people in English-speaking countries may therefore dismiss an article overall. This was the impression I received from my first peer reviewer. As for content, regardless of the type of research - whether basic or clinical - it is essential to explain the practical significance of the research, such as its implications for future treatment strategies or healthcare regulations. The editor-in-chief particularly favors articles with practical significance. In fact, there are many aspects of my own article that I am not satisfied with, particularly the discussion section, which I wrote in too much detail and consequently reduced the readability of the article. I wanted to share my experience and encourage others

(0) 讚！ | 凌霄高洁