Although it was accepted after a lot of hard work, it is hard to tell good articles from bad, there are good articles and a lot of valueless articles as well. There is still a big gap between this journal and Clinical Cancer Research.

(25) Thank | gogopublish

After nine months, the first article was accepted by CCC. I feel that CCC's processing speed is not bad, not as long as at least a year I heard. Except for it was quite long for the two months with editor, it was quite fast. The editor sent it to the reviewers the next day after major revision and minor revision submitted. It is a very good journal. I hope CCC will do better in the future.

(29) Thank | 快乐科研狗1111

Recently, the review speed has become significantly faster. Good articles are suggested to try. This is a journal higher having a higher level of recognition than CBM.

(8) Thank | CCRCCCCBM

This is probably my first and last submission to CCC. I submitted back in August, and the status of my article is still with the editor in November. Although I’ve emailed the editor twice, his response is that it’s the journal’s policy to only use experts in the field, and that everyone is currently unavailable. Slow – reconsider submitting to this journal.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Which editor will be displayed by "with editor"? Why didn't I see it?

(0) Thank | 情非得已685

What's going on now?

(0) Thank | 情非得已685

Isn't a major overhaul usually given one month?

(0) Thank | Manhattan

Oh, these two reviewers also went through two rounds of major revisions.

(0) Thank | Manhattan

Submission on October 3, 2024
Major revision on January 13, 2025
Submit R1 on February 25, 2025
Major revision on March 5, 2025
Submit R2 on March 27, 2025
Accepted on April 7, 2025

The top journal Pure Pure has two reviewers. One provides targeted and constructive feedback with few comments, while the other, with a more experienced background, gives many comments. Some are rigorous and sharp, showing a professional background, while others are formulaic and superficial, disrupting the original logic of the text. A few seem to be included just to fulfill a quota, possibly due to lack of careful reading or unclear original expressions. Overall, the review process is strict, with significant changes to the original text resulting in noticeable improvements. The only downside is one reviewer's suggestion to cite four articles, which, although from different authors, still appears somewhat traceable and detracts from the overall quality.

(0) Thank | boy8106

You need to look at the editor's time, around 7 days.

(0) Thank | Yu

May I ask how long ago you received the message?

(0) Thank | 小李爱科研

I cannot understand the mindset of this editor. I have been researching innovative methods and creating new things, using characterization techniques that we have recently developed. And yet, they tell me that it lacks sufficient novelty. Do I really have to ride the wave of fiber optics or machine learning to be successful?

(0) Thank | Yu

Can any expert interpret how long it takes for CCC's "Require Reviews Complete"? Four review comments have come back, three of them, but one reviewer has been silent for over a month, probably slipped away.

(0) Thank | Manhattan

Hey everyone, I wanted to ask if four of the opinions have received 3 opinions, and the other person is likely to have left. RRC has been over three weeks, should we send it out?

(0) Thank | Manhattan

The quality of this journal has been declining since the editor was changed a few years ago. It has become a tool for a group of influential people to manipulate. The journal now prioritizes papers with a large quantity of work, but may overlook those with truly innovative ideas and strategies.

(0) Thank | SHMSFHMHMHM

May I ask if anyone knows how long it usually takes for editors at CCC to provide feedback on manuscript submissions?

(0) Thank | 西破儿

The first submission was made, skipping the "submitted to journal" status and going directly to "with editor." Three days later, the status changed to "with editor." Has the chief editor passed this on to other editors?

(0) Thank | 哦，你是大佬

Nemkumar Banthia was also rejected by this editor.

(0) Thank | mhbby

May I ask how to find out who the editor of an article is? Can it be seen during the "with editor" stage?

(0) Thank | mhbby

Oh, CCR is pretty much a lost cause again, so CBM is the one with some high-quality articles. I guess it's because the editor rejected them.

(1) Thank | 不愿意透露姓名的草根科研者

It's not that he doesn't want Chinese people, he has quite a few articles published under the name of Chinese people. He only attaches his name to those that are related to him, even articles written by Koreans are published under his name.

(0) Thank | 不愿意透露姓名的草根科研者

The current editor-in-chief of CCC is **, Nemkumar Banthia. This ** is of low level. I feel that it is because **, an Indian, does not want articles from Chinese people.

(0) Thank | 印度人都得*

It's edited by Nemkumar, who looks like an Indian. You can search for his articles. Many submissions in China, especially top journals like CCC, have to mention his name. Those who understand the reasons will know.

(0) Thank | 不愿意透露姓名的草根科研者

Which editor is it?

(0) Thank | 1111阿龙

The most disgusting editor I have ever seen, the nano-modification method we are researching has not been studied in concrete yet, but he directly said, as everyone knows, it does not solve scientific problems. Yesterday, I listened to an academic report he gave, and then checked the literature, all about uhpc steel fiber modification, he himself made a lot of ccc, all just a routine, and still had the nerve to deny that it is well-known. A search on Baidu shows that every year he goes to lectures at top universities in China, I don't know how much he has gained.

(2) Thank | 不愿意透露姓名的草根科研者