What are the requirements for raw data?

(0) 讚！ | 岭南振华

The discussion section is the core part of a SCI paper, as it can reflect the breadth and depth of the author's research. Therefore, there is no specific word limit for this section. Depending on the article and the author, the word count for the discussion section can vary greatly, ranging from a few thousand words to tens of thousands of words

(0) 讚！ | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

The discussion section is the core part of an SCI paper, as it reflects the breadth and depth of the author's research. Therefore, there is no specific word limit for this section. Depending on the article and the author, the length of the discussion section can vary from a few thousand words to tens of thousands of words

(0) 讚！ | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

How many words should be used in a typical essay?

(0) 讚！ | 八坂篷蔚

Does the lengthy discussion reflect the author's deep thoughts on the topic? Did the reviewers have a favorable impression of the manuscript?

(0) 讚！ | 修然小公主

Although the process was very long, I am grateful for the first-time submission and acceptance.

(0) 讚！ | laohao

Does anyone encounter blurry images in the PDF after merging?

(0) 讚！ | 南风睿达

Do you need a submission letter?

(0) 讚！ | 南风睿达

It's really too slow, it has been dragging on for 5 months. I received two emails saying that they couldn't find a reviewer and I'm still waiting anxiously!!! It's been under review since August 17, 2020, and it's still in the same status.

(0) 讚！ | laohao

Review speed: 2.0 | Submission hit rate: 50.0 
Focused research direction: lncRNA; Tumor experience sharing: If there are no good mouse data, it will not be included, with molecular mechanisms as the main focus; After investigating similar journals, I feel like this should not be a problem. Submitted on September 3rd, the journal did not require specific formatting, but personally I believe our details and format are quite in place (both my teacher and I pay close attention to this). There seem to be many minor language expression issues that could not be avoided. When submitting, I had to choose 5 fields, which I basically followed the keywords (should be related to selecting reviews, but it's not clear whether selecting the same field is better than different ones, afraid that choosing something like tumor biology would highlight the lack of functionality in our article, and also afraid that choosing mechanism would require a bunch of additional experiments...). In about a week, it moved from "with editor" to "under review" (I estimate that the speed of this process depends on the attention to detail and formatting), and then on October 6th, it was decided to go for minor revision, with three reviewers (probably received replies from 3 out of the 5 reviewers) providing a lot of feedback. One of them was very thorough, questioning everything from the wording to the methods, and expressing doubts about several experiments, most likely a PhD student under a big boss. There was one not very critical, asking about techniques without questioning them; The last one had few questions, but they were very professional and not easy to solve, including further mechanisms and some unreliable experiments, but I felt their attitude towards the article was positive. In short, do not have any illusions, do not chase after too much data, and inevitably any loopholes will be discovered. A month was given to reply; at the time, I did not see the word "Minor" in the email, but I did not dare to procrastinate, hurried to complete most of the experiments and diligently replied. 20 days later, there was a second review, with two reviewers being satisfied and the most critical reviewer did not reply, but a sixth reviewer popped up, raising some professional questions, two of them are a bit excessive. I guess the negative feedback from the last reviewer made the editor find someone else to evaluate it... This time, the email mentioned a "Minor Revision," and the editor asked to consider their feedback. Another 30-day deadline. My teacher and I had a disagreement; I felt it was unfair to have another review, but I did not want to get entangled and thought it could be resolved adquately in the discussion section, but my teacher was very cautious and insisted on further experiments... Eventually, we compromised and added some experiments, thankfully no major changes were needed, and finally after a sincere reply after about 20 days, it was accepted after 12 days. A total of 4 months. 12/29/2020 Decision - Accept 12/17/2020 General - Author - Submits Revision Confirmation 11/25/2020 Decision - Minor Revision 11/05/2020 General - Author - Submits Revision Confirmation 10/06/2020 Decision - Minor Revision 09/03/2020 General - Author - Submits New MS Confirmation After looking at these logs, it turned out that the first review was also a minor one, anyway, we did not dare to be careless under the careful supervision of my teacher, not sure how the review will turn out, especially since I urgently needed to get my degree and couldn't afford any risks... The conclusion is, do not have any illusions, do not chase after too much data, never include unclear conclusions, as there are several reviewers and they are all very serious. Pay attention to details and format, this should facilitate the process, don't make a mess just because there are no specific formatting requirements. Another detail is that the submission system is said to be difficult to use, and even if it is said to be easy to use, it is not that great, not very scientific and slow, every time you fiddle with it, it takes a few hours, the deadlines are according to the local time of the magazine's website, so be careful not to exceed the time limit

(0) 讚！ | 芙蓉傲晴

12/29/2020 Decision-Accept; 12/17/2020 General-Author-Submits Revision Confirmation; 11/25/2020 Decision-Minor Revision; 11/05/2020 General-Author-Submits Revision Confirmation; 10/06/2020 Decision-Minor Revision; 09/03 /2020 General-Author-Submits New MS Confirmation. The research was about lncRNA. There was no any good data of mice, so we did not include them in the manuscript. It was not very strict in this aspect. A large number of problems was given by 3 reviewers in the first review, and 30 days was given. A minor revision was required in the second review. Another reviewer was added. We really did not want to supplement any experiments, but finally we had to compromise and supplement some, and then made a lot of replies. Later, I saw these logs and realized that it was also a Minor revision required in the first review. Anyway, I didn't dare to be too casual. I don't know what it will be like, but after all, I need a degree and I can't take the risk... Don't take any chances. Don’t be greedy for too much data. Don’t include any data if you don’t have a clear conclusion for them. The several reviewers invited were very serious. If you pay attention to the details and format, the progress should be promoted. Don’t make a mess without reading the format requirements.

(3) 讚！ | xiazhuceyong

Review speed: 2.0 | Submission hit rate: 50.0 Emphasized research direction: lncRNA; Tumor experience sharing: focusing on lncRNA and tumors, no good mouse data, more on molecular mechanisms. Investigated similar journals and felt that this should not be a big issue. Submitted on September 3rd, the journal did not have any formatting requirements, but personally I feel that our details and formats are quite in place (both my teacher and I are very attentive to this), there seem to be quite a few minor language expression issues that cannot be avoided. When submitting, there was a page to select 5 areas, I basically chose according to the keywords (should be related to selecting reviews, not sure whether it's better to choose the same field or different ones, afraid that choosing fields like tumor biology will raise issues of our article's functionality being insufficient, also afraid that selecting mechanism will require a bunch of additional experiments...), in about a week it changed from 'with editor' to 'under review' (I reckon the speed of this is related to whether the details and formats are in place), then on October 6th Decision - Minor Revision, where review 1, 3, and 5 (probably sent to 5 people with 3 replies) raised a bunch of questions, one of them was very detailed with doubts from text to methods, and skeptical about several experiments, probably a doctoral student under a big boss... a second one was quite general, asking about some techniques without questioning; the last one had few questions but was quite professional, a few of them were difficult to solve, including further mechanisms and some unreliable experiments, but I feel he is more positively inclined towards the article. In short, do not be overconfident, do not greed for data, loopholes will definitely be discovered. One month deadline was given, I did not see the word 'Minor' in the email at the time, but I did not dare to be negligent, hastily completed most of the experiments and replied seriously, got stuck in revising within the deadline. 20 days later, there was a second review, both referees were satisfied, but the person who questioned the most did not reply, and a new review 6 popped up, annoying again with 5 professional questions, two of which were a bit demanding, I reckon the negative comments from the last person prompted the editor to seek another opinion... This time in the email appeared Minor Revision, the editor said consider his opinions. Still 30 days deadline. My boss and I had a disagreement, I felt another review was unreasonable, did not want to keep entangling, felt it was fine to discuss the main points in the discussion section, but my boss was too cautious and insisted on further experiments... in the end, I compromised and added some experiments, luckily it was just some unattractive figures, and then dragged it out for about 20 days to reply earnestly with a bunch of revisions. Finally, accepted after 12 days. A total of 4 months. 12/29/2020 Decision - Accept 12/17/2020 General - Author - Submits Revision Confirmation11/25/2020 Decision - Minor Revision11/05/2020 General - Author - Submits Revision Confirmation10/06/2020 Decision - Minor Revision09/03/2020 General - Author - Submits New MS Confirmation Later seeing these logs, the first review was also Minor, anyway we did not dare to be careless under the meticulous supervision of our boss, not sure what would happen if there were loopholes, after all, it was crucial to get the degree without taking risks... the conclusion is: do not be overconfident, do not get greedy for data, do not put unclear conclusions, there are several reviewers, all very serious. Pay attention to details and formats should promote progress, do not create a mess just because there are no formatting requirements. One more detail is that the submission system is said to be difficult to use but it's not that difficult or said to be easy to use but not very good, unscientific and slow, it takes several hours to fiddle with it each time, and the deadline is in their local time zone, be sure to avoid going overtime

(0) 讚！ | 芙蓉傲晴

Submitted on June 23, 2020, Accepted on December 17, 2020. The overall process was a bit slow, but the reviewers were very knowledgeable. Hope everyone can succeed!

(0) 讚！ | 通幽元凯

It's really too difficult

(0) 讚！ | 通幽元凯

When submitting, I didn't choose the OA option, but I had to choose an option for $140 per page, and also fill in the invoice address unit. Will there be any additional charges? I am a newbie, thank you for your guidance

(0) 讚！ | 暗月寺松申

Review speed: 1.0 Experience sharing: I am sincerely grateful to the responsible editor Usha of RNA Biology, who is extremely diligent and responsible. It is not excessive to say that they are strict to the extreme during the proofreading period, not letting go of all the punctuation and words in our manuscript. How much time and effort must this take!

(0) 讚！ | 行云永龙

Review speed: 3.0
Research focus: miRNA; lncRNA; piRNA
Experience sharing: Good journals in the RNA research field

(0) 讚！ | 深渊俊楚

Review speed: 3.0
Research focus: miRNA; lncRNA; piRNA
Experience sharing: One major revision, two rounds of review, took three months, finally accepted. RNA Biology journal has high requirements, expert reviewers are very detailed, their comments are helpful for improving the quality of the manuscript. Reviewers and editorial board are strict in quality control, they value data innovation and quality. Being able to publish in RNA Biology feels good

(0) 讚！ | 深渊俊楚

2020.02.19 Submission; 2020.03.17 became under review; 2020.04.23 under review； 2020.05.03 under review 2020.05.06 decision for process; 2020.05.08 reject. It totally took 79 days, nearly 3 months. It was too slow, and this journal does not have any special requirements for the format. After uploading, the reviewer said that it is very difficult to read without the line number. The comments given were basically issues of grammar, low resolution of figures, or writing problems, which drove me crazy. It may be that the novelty was not enough, and I will not submit to it again in the future. It is too slow and the manuscript submission system is not easy to use.

(17) 讚！ | stone peng

Submitted on 2020.02.19, under review on 2020.03.17, under review on 2020.04.23, under review on 2020.05.03, decision for process on 2020.05.06, rejected on 2020.05.08. The total duration is 79 days, almost 3 months, which is too slow. Moreover, this journal does not have any specific formatting requirements. After uploading, the reviewer said it was difficult to read without line numbers and most of the feedback was related to grammar, unclear figures, and writing issues. It was really frustrating. Maybe the novelty of the research was not enough. I will not submit to this journal again in the future, as it is too slow and the submission system is not user-friendly

(0) 讚！ | 凌霄碧儿

Submitted in October 2019, received reviews in one month, with many suggestions for revision from two reviewers. Spent almost two months conducting additional experiments; received acceptance after a half-month of the second review. The reviewers were very professional and detailed, with constructive comments. The editorial board includes many well-known experts in the field, the responsible editor is nice but strict in quality control for the paper. It is indeed a prestigious journal in the RNA field, and it is nice to be able to publish research on RNA in it. There is no publication fee for the article, which is great! The article can be accessed via this link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15476286.2020.1726128

(0) 讚！ | 北岳山阳

I specialize in mRNA structure, and the first paper of my academic career was accepted by this journal, I feel honored. After submission, it took a month and a half to be with the editor, considering how difficult it is to find reviewers nowadays. Once the reviewers were found, the review process was quite fast. The first review took a month, with major revisions. The feedback was detailed and professional, very helpful to me. After making many revisions, I resubmitted. The second review took another month, with minor revisions. One reviewer approved it, but another raised several strange questions. I provided many references in response, made few changes, and resubmitted. The third review took another month and a half, with minor revisions, addressing language and figure caption issues. After making the necessary changes, it was finally accepted. Looking back, the whole process took more than half a year, but I am grateful to the reviewers for their valuable input on my research. This prestigious journal is truly strict

(0) 讚！ | 凌霄秀梅

I am doing mRNA structure, and I published my first SCI paper in this journal for my academic career. I feel very honored. I have been with editor for one and a half months after submission. After all, reviewers are hard to find now. After finding reviewers, the review speed is very fast. The first review comments returned in one month and required major revisions. The comments were particularly detailed and professional, which was very helpful to me, and we sent it back after a lot of changes made; the second returned in another one month, and required minor revisions. One reviewer has agreed to accept, but the other one asked a lot of strange questions. I cited a lot of references to reply, and revised a little before sending it back. The third one took one and a half months requiring minor revisions. The reviewer asked a few questions about language issues and figure legends. =-= We sent it back after the revisions, and it finally got accepted. It lasted for more than half a year. In fact, I am kind of grateful to these two reviewers, which are very helpful to my scientific research. An old brand journal, it is really strict!

(31) 讚！ | Bossa

The article took exactly half a year from submission to acceptance. Although it was sent for review two months later in the hands of the editor, the results were not bad, and I only needed to make minor revisions without any additional experiments. This is the first time I have encountered a situation where only minor revisions were needed, so I feel that this journal is easier, perhaps it's just my illusion

(0) 讚！ | 努力啊大问容

Review Speed: 6.0 | Submission Acceptance Rate: 25.0
Experience Sharing: Just got into it, with editor for a month, no response at all, everyone be cautious

(0) 讚！ | Jonas