Please submit the review article. It will be under review for one day, and then returned for major revisions after 7 days. After one month, it will be returned for minor revisions, and then accepted for publication one day later.

(1) 讚！ | Lucky

How long does it take from the completion of the final draft to go online?

(0) 讚！ | 一只子轩呀

What's the matter, buddy?

(0) 讚！ | ontheway

Your experience is actually quite good. Although it took a bit long, both the reviewers and editors were fair, and being rigorous is a good thing.

(0) 讚！ | 不灭幻菱

Please translate the following passage into English: Even if you crack it by hand, the editor will not even look at it and will directly reject it.

(0) 讚！ | 无妄修敏

Has the issue of word proof been resolved? I am also experiencing the same problem.

(3) 讚！ | 一只倩利呀

Do I have to provide proof of polish if I want to say brother?

(0) 讚！ | 珉林弘文

Submission success rate: 50.0
Research focus: Tumor
Experience sharing: Require 3 sets of untrimmed and unedited wb raw data, are we all the same?

(0) 讚！ | 日光半菡

When did you get promoted to district 2?

(0) 讚！ | 终幕玉石

#Journal Forum# It's tough to level up, so I made it to district 2

(0) 讚！ | 暴风高兴

How long after will you start under review?

(0) 讚！ | 一条小乐槐

The pain in one's heart, only oneself knows. 555

(0) 讚！ | 四风绿蕊

I can empathize with you, and I don't feel like easily submitting to this magazine in the future

(0) 讚！ | 秋颖姑娘

Hello, may I ask how things are going lately?

(0) 讚！ | 西域涵菡

I didn't make many changes, just some minor revisions from the two reviewers and a few major revisions from the editor, then it was accepted. It took a little over 2 months from submission to acceptance

(0) 讚！ | 洗髓谷云

Your attention to the small details is fine, even though I haven't rejected your submission. The review process is indeed thorough. I submitted it on 9.20 and it is still under review. I sent an email to the editor inquiring about the status, and the response was that it is in peer review. I am not sure when it will be completed. I corrected the spacing issue and made sure to write 'uM' correctly, but I forgot to include the p-value

(0) 讚！ | PengHuiWang

Yes. Exhausted to the point of mental and physical fatigue. Can't find the words to express it. My head feels numb. Tired

(0) 讚！ | 四风绿蕊

Following this, the proof stage is the most nerve-wracking, with over 100 questions. Why did the Water Magazine put so much effort into it?

(0) 讚！ | 平乐少女

It's too much. Proofreading over a hundred questions makes me want to vomit. Even common sense things require citing supporting references. It's giving me a headache

(0) 讚！ | 平乐少女

It will be very precise to provide the population and percentage of a disease occurrence in the references you cited, materials preparation and storage, criteria for sample exclusion and inclusion, male-to-female ratio, age distribution, specific number of public data, immunohistochemistry scoring criteria, software version number sources, antibody species dilution ratio, RNA extraction SYGR reverse transcription and PCR system and reaction program should be written, Western blot loading amount, concentration, cell centrifugation speed, temperature, time, statistical issues are really detailed, what kind of test was used, specific p values should be written in the results section, full name of each abbreviation, specific siRNA used in each experiment, units should not be written as um, should be written in Latin format. There should be a space between units and parentheses, and there should be a space before the scar bar unit in the figure. In short, the methods and materials section is very, very detailed. It's driving me crazy. Online access will be granted a few days after payment. Finally bidding farewell to this journal. Thought it was easy, but it really gave me a hard time. Too detailed

(0) 讚！ | 特特子

It can only be said that it's too difficult. Submitted in late February, accepted in early November, it took more than 8 months. I sent a message to urge the submission at the fifth month, and the editor replied that it would speed up. The first review was completed at the sixth month. On September 7th, there were 4 reviewers. Reviewer 1 raised more than 40 questions, most of which were about the literature format or theoretical issues; Reviewer 2 said the quality of the western blot was not good; Reviewer 3 said it could be recommended for publication; Reviewer 4 raised 10 questions, including issues with western blot and transwell clarity. Additional experiments were added later, and many bizarre questions were answered. For example, it was pointed out that the sentence lacked references, and for abnormal gene expression, it should be specified whether it was upregulated or downregulated. The introduction of the gene studied was not detailed enough, its family members should be introduced, and the number of its isoforms should be specified. Why can the delta-delta CT method be used to calculate RNA expression, and why can RPS18 be used as an internal control? Please provide references. Explain why your gene has different prognostic effects compared to other referenced genes, some promoting and some inhibiting, etc. Answering these questions was really exhausting. It turned out that this was just the beginning. A month-long mental battle with the editor began. First, a language certificate had to be provided. Then there was a dispute over the name of a cell line. In mid-October, it was pre-accepted, I thought it was over. But damn, after submitting a word document for proofreading, the editor raised over 100 questions. My pupils trembled. It will be very precise

(0) 讚！ | 特特子

Review speed: 4.0 | Submission hit rate: 75.0 Emphasis research direction: Tumor; Expression; Oncology Letters Experience sharing: It's really difficult, submitted at the end of February and accepted in early November, taking more than 8 months. At the five-month mark, I sent a message to urge the review once, and the editor replied that it would speed up. The first review was completed at the six-month mark. By September 7th, there were four reviewers. Reviewer 1 raised more than 40 questions, mostly about the format of references or theoretical issues. Reviewer 2 said the quality of Western blot was not good, Reviewer 3 said it could be published but with suggestions for improvement, Reviewer 4 raised 10 questions, including issues with Western blot and transwell clarity. I supplemented some experiments later and answered many strange questions. For example, you said this sentence lacked references, and if abnormal gene expression should specify whether it is elevated or decreased and is associated with a poor prognosis, you cannot simply say abnormal expression, you have to say whether it is elevated or decreased. The introduction of the gene you are studying is not detailed enough, you need to introduce its family members and how many isoforms the gene has. Why can the delta delta CT method be used to calculate RNA expression? Why can RPS18 be used as an internal reference? Please provide references. Explain why your gene shows different prognostic effects from other referenced genes, why some promote while others inhibit, etc. Answering these questions is really tiring. Later, I found out this was just the beginning. After a long month, the real battle with the editor began. First, a language proof was required. Then there was a debate over the name of a cell line. In mid-October, the article was pre-accepted, I thought it was over. Damn, after sending a Word proofread version, the editor raised over 100 questions, it was eye-opening. They were very precise and asked for detailed information about the population and percentage of a disease in the reference, materials preparation and preservation, sample exclusion and inclusion criteria, male-to-female ratio, age distribution, specific number of individuals in public data, immunohistochemistry scoring criteria, software version used, antibody number, species dilution ratio, RNA extraction procedure, SYGR reverse transcription and PCR system, and reaction program, Western blot loading amount, concentration, cell centrifugation speed, temperature, time, statistical issues, what specific test was used, specific p-values must be written in the results section, the full name of each abbreviation, the specific siRNA used in each experiment, um cannot be written as um, it should be written as the Latin format for u. There should be a space between the unit and the text within parentheses, and a space before the scar bar unit in the figure. In short, the method and material section is very detailed and it drove me crazy. After payment, it went online in a few days. Finally bid farewell to this journal. I thought it was very easy, but they really made it very difficult. Too detailed. I just wrote it randomly, writing whatever came to mind

(0) 讚！ | 四风绿蕊

Review speed: 4.0 | Submission hit rate: 75.0
Emphasis on research direction: Tumor; Expression; Oncology Letters
Experience sharing: I can only say it's too difficult. Submitted at the end of February, accepted in early November, it took more than 8 months. At the five-month mark, I sent a message to urge the review once, and the editor replied that the process would be sped up. The first review was completed at the sixth month. On September 7th, there were 4 reviewers. Reviewer 1 raised over 40 questions, most of them were about literature format or theoretical issues. Reviewer 2 said the quality of western blot was not good, Reviewer 3 said it could be considered for publication, Reviewer 4 raised 10 questions, including issues with western blot and transwell clarity. I supplemented some experiments later and answered many strange questions. For example, you mentioned this sentence lacks citations, you need to specify whether the gene abnormality expression is increased or decreased for a poor prognosis. You can't just say abnormal expression in the literature, you have to accurately state if it's upregulated or downregulated. The introduction to the gene you're studying is not detailed enough, you need to introduce its family members and how many isoforms it has. Why can the delta delta CT method be used to calculate RNA expression, and why can RPS18 be used as an internal reference, please provide references. Explain why your gene has different prognostic outcomes compared to other referenced genes, why some promote while others inhibit, etc. It's really exhausting to answer these questions. Later, I found out that this was just the beginning. After a long month of strategic struggle with the editor finally began. First, you have to provide language proof. Then it's about agonizing over the name of a cell line. Then, in mid-October, pre-acceptance, I thought it was over. Hell, they sent a word proof, and the editor raised over 100 questions, overwhelming. They will be very accurate about the population and percentage occurrence of a disease you cited in the literature, preparation and storage of materials, criteria for excluding and including samples, gender ratios, age distribution, specific number of individuals in public data, immunohistochemical scoring criteria, software version numbers used, antibody numbers species dilution ratio, SYGR reverse transcription and PCR system for RNA extraction, reaction program, western blot sampling quantity, concentration, cell centrifuge speed, temperature, time, statistical problems are really detailed, what kind of test is used, specific p-values should be written in the results section, the full name of each abbreviation, specific siRNA used in each experiment, units cannot be written as um must be written in Latin format. There should be a space between the unit and the text in parentheses, and a space before the unit in front of the scar bar of the image. In short, the methods and materials section is very, very detail-oriented. The revisions were devastating. After payment, it was online in a couple of days. Finally bid farewell to this magazine. I thought it was going to be easy, but it turned out to be extremely detailed

(0) 讚！ | 四风绿蕊

Review Speed: 3.0 | Submission Hit Rate: 95.0 Experience Sharing: 8.4 Submitted on 8/4, accepted on 10/25. The first review took the longest, with the results of the first review not available until 10/4. There were three reviewers, the second one did not provide any comments, only praises, while the first and third each provided six comments, requesting additional experiments and analysis data. I made the changes as requested. The editor also raised a few additional questions, luckily they were all related to statistics. This journal seems to skip the second review by reviewers after major revisions, and instead, the editors internally review it. There were three minor issues raised by the editor before and after editing, but the paper was accepted immediately after the response. This journal is really good, with a fast first review of 2 months and a high acceptance rate

(0) 讚！ | 平乐少女

How are you now? It's been over four months since I last saw you

(0) 讚！ | 小萦心吖