Received review comments one month after submission. Took two days to revise the paper and resubmit. Now waiting for the review results. The journal is good.

(0) Thank | sunkaiortholivea

How did it go in the end?

(0) Thank | Yale Bush

We suggest dividing discussions on research limitations into three parts: (1) presenting research limitations; (2) explaining research limitations in detail; and (3) proposing future research directions or improvement plans. By discussing research limitations in this order, you can clearly present the shortcomings of the research without compromising its quality and validity

(0) Thank | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

It is still necessary for us to clearly explain the limitations of the research in the paper, and to explain the impact of these limitations on the conclusions of the paper, so that reviewers and other readers can understand that we have fully considered the limitations of the study. In general, discussing the limitations of the research in the discussion section makes the article more credible. Thinking about how to overcome these limitations in future research will have a positive effect

(0) Thank | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

How to address limitations in a discussion?

(0) Thank | 八坂篷蔚

Is it necessary to mention the limitations of the article in the discussion?

(0) Thank | 北国博达

Review speed: 2.0 Experience sharing: After submitting for a month and revising it, it was revised in two days and resubmitted. Now waiting for news. The magazine feels pretty good

(0) Thank | 西风傲菡

Orthopedic journals are like this, even if you aim for the top ones, the difference is not much higher, it's easier to submit to lower-ranked ones

(0) Thank | 五轮耀兴

As with the orthopedic journals, the highest scores are not much higher. It is easier to submitted more low scores.

(0) Thank | akm