The requirements for this journal are very strict. The reviewers are professional and timely, and the final editorial decision is dependent on the reviewers’ opinions.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

This is too miserable.

(0) Thank | 汤先生

How to submit a contribution?

(0) Thank | 东风谷静娴

How did it go?

(0) Thank | Vanessa Dora

Review speed: 2.0 | Submission acceptance rate: 25.0 Focus on research area: Critical care; Multicenter large sample experience sharing: The first submission was returned for revisions in a week, and there has been no response after 40 days of the second submission. I am very scared, wish me good luck, everyone

(0) Thank | 火焰孟菊

Are you accepting case reports?

(0) Thank | 血天运珊

Will this magazine accept unsolicited reviews?

(0) Thank | 花拳硕阳

Excuse me, where should I submit the images for this journal submission? I can't seem to find the right place

(0) Thank | 北风玉琲

Briefly describe the method with references

(0) Thank | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

The principle of writing methods is to provide enough experimental information for peers to replicate the experiment process. The indicators and procedures required for the experiment should be described comprehensively and standardized

(0) Thank | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

To what extent can methods be abbreviated?

(0) Thank | 平原文波

How detailed should the methods be?

(0) Thank | 八坂篷蔚

Do you accept case reports?

(0) Thank | 安福可爱吗

Seeking for experiences and sharing

(0) Thank | Oliver Jerry

Is it required for all authors to confirm via email before starting the CCM review process?

(0) Thank | 西风元冬

Do all authors of CCM need to confirm by email before starting the review process?

(0) Thank | 西风元冬

The reviewers are very strict and responsible, and the final decision of the editor depends on the reviewers' scores. After supplementary experiments and revisions, the language and quality of the article have been greatly improved

(0) Thank | 九阴英飙

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission acceptance rate: 5.0
Experience sharing: Animal experiments, pancreatitis, rejected in 3 days, without substantial reasons

(0) Thank | Irene Robin

Reviewers are all experts, and they have a lot of power. The final decision of the editor depends on the scores given by the reviewers. I was asked to conduct additional experiments after the first review, and then revised the manuscript half a year later. The second review lasted for 40 days and required major revisions. After spending three months revising the manuscript once again, the third review took only half a month before it was rejected. Among the three reviewers, two had very few comments, while only one reviewer believed that the research content was not suitable for the readers of the journal and still proposed rejection. Ultimately, the editor-in-chief followed the advice of this particular expert and decided to reject the manuscript. Although I was very upset, the reviewers' comments were very detailed and sharp, even pointing out misspelled words with only three letters in the entire manuscript. After conducting additional experiments and making corrections, the language and quality of the manuscript were significantly improved. I am now preparing to submit the manuscript to another journal

(0) Thank | 小承悦吖

Review speed: 2.0 | Submission hit rate: 25.0
Experience sharing: This journal is a top-notch journal in the field of serious illness and is particularly noteworthy for providing a platform for basic research. I have submitted manuscripts twice, both of which were basic research. One was rejected after 6 weeks of review for multiple organ failure, with good reasons given, and I learned a lot from the experience. The other was rejected on the same day for lack of depth in the article, so I had to resubmit. It is still worth trying again next time

(0) Thank | 中原谷枫

Review Speed: 1.0 | Acceptance Rate: 25.0
Experience Sharing: This journal reviews very seriously, with a total of 5 reviewers, including what seems to be a statistics expert. They provided a lot of feedback, especially in terms of statistics. However, my submission was rejected

(0) Thank | 无冬宏才

Review speed: 2.0 | Submission hit rate: 25.0 Experience sharing: Reviewed for 6 weeks, although all 4 reviewers were quite positive, still got rejected, reason being too many high-quality articles received. Damn it! It's even more painful to be rejected right from the beginning!

(0) Thank | 凌霄高洁

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission acceptance rate: 25.0
Experience sharing: The review period is generally four to five weeks, and the efficiency is very high. There are usually four reviewers, with high requirements for innovation and rigor. In critical care medicine, the top journal, excluding ARJCCM

(0) Thank | 震雷立轩

Review Speed: 1.0 Experience Sharing: The professional journal for critically ill patients, focusing on clinical aspects. Opportunities are also provided for better basic research. The review process is relatively fast, around 2 weeks. The reviewers' opinions are quite specific and detailed

(0) Thank | Rupert Richardson