I feel that this journal has not been very good in the past two years, and the quality has gone down.

(0) Thank | Squires

All questions must be answered systematically without omission; try to fulfill any additional experiments suggested in the comments, provide reasonable explanations if some cannot be conducted; make sure to cite the literature recommended by the reviewer and discuss it thoroughly; double-check the modifications made to the initial draft before submitting the revised manuscript

(0) Thank | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

After the reviewer completes the scoring of the chapter, they need to write a comprehensive review opinion. This usually includes a brief summary of the article content, evaluation of the article's innovation points, pointing out the shortcomings of the article, and providing suggestions for how the editor should handle the article

(0) Thank | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

How to respond to reviewer comments?

(0) Thank | 修然小公主

What are the opinions and suggestions of the journal editors? What are the opinions and suggestions of the reviewer? What are the differences between the two?

(0) Thank | Oswald Edie

Review speed: 3.0 Experience sharing: I feel that this journal is not as good as before in the past two years, and the reviewers are not as serious as before

(0) Thank | Jocelyn Albert

3-point edge, hoping to maintain stability, a slight increase is also good

(0) Thank | 凌霄高洁

Submission success rate: 5.0 Experience sharing: The official magazine of the four Nordic countries, with the majority of authors from these four countries, followed by Europe, a few from the United States, rare from Asia, and none from China in the past two years. The difficulty of submission is very high, with a success rate of about 15% or less. Usually, editors will eliminate a batch of submissions similar to domestic core journals!

(0) Thank | Gale Onions

Review speed: 3.0 | Submission acceptance rate: 50.0
Experience sharing: In April 2012, I submitted an article to this journal. The first review reply came in one month, saying they were interested and requested revisions (no rejection, I thought the reviewers were kind). So I made the revisions and resubmitted. After two months with no response, I sent a reminder email, and got a quick reply. The reviewers thought the experiments were too simple and requested additional experiments (they were really kind). It took nearly 2 months to complete the additional experiments and resubmit. After one month with no news, I sent another reminder, expressing concern about the lengthy review process and urging for a faster pace. The reply promised faster processing. Less than 2 weeks later, they replied asking for language polishing. After polishing, I resubmitted and received acceptance 3 days later. The whole process took nearly 8 months

(0) Thank | 哈罗德耶克斯

It looks bullish. If it goes up again tomorrow, it is expected to break through 3 points

(0) Thank | 凌霄高洁

EF has just been found in 2009

(0) Thank | 凌霄高洁

EF has just been found in 2009

(0) Thank | 九阴琴心

My article was rejected after being reviewed for 3 months. It's very straightforward. A bit frustrated, if they were going to reject it, they should have done it sooner instead of dragging it out for so long

(0) Thank | Eli Josh

Field: Oncology
Country: Sweden
Submission Time: May 2006
Review Time: Initial review 8 weeks, major revision once, return after two months, minor revision, then return after two weeks for acceptance.
Publication Fee: Free
Journal Periodicity: 8 issues per year
Personal Comment: This journal is worth considering for colleagues studying tumors. It leans toward the basic side, and its Impact Factor has risen rapidly in recent years, from a few points to a certain difficulty level. Full-text access is available for free online six months after publication

(0) Thank | 凌霄高洁