After two months, I received a direct rejection. The journal is very serious, and the reviewers put forward a lot of opinions, which is very helpful for subsequent revisions. I hope I can contribute to the journal in the future.

(1) Thank | sihaodu@foxmail.com

May I ask which parts of the magazine require uploading original images when requesting original data? Apart from Western blot, are original images of other parts also required, such as immunofluorescence of tissue or flow cytometry?

(0) Thank | 沐雨潜然

1. Submission 2024.6.12
2. With editor 6.17
3. Peer review 6.23
4. Revision 7.12
Submitted for one month, three reviewers, 40 questions. The editor requested major revisions within two weeks. An additional two months was requested to conduct more animal experiments (new models were validated). The reviewers asked detailed questions, inquiring about the validity of each figure and method. Additional literature was researched and explanations were added. The response letter was over 12,000 words long. Fortunately, the reviewers were reasonable and not overly critical. Any flaws in the research were discussed and clarified in the paper.
5. Revision received 9.25
6. Revision requested 10.17
Two reviewers had no comments on the second revision, but the third reviewer requested further discussion on the paper's flaws. The revised version was resubmitted three days later.
7. Revision received 11.20
8. Accepted 12.16

(0) Thank | outman

Is there a follow-up? If it can be submitted for review, what are the chances?

(0) Thank | Jia Huafang

May I ask how much the layout fee for this magazine is approximately?

(0) Thank | Larry Washington

May I ask how much is the layout fee for this magazine?

(0) Thank | Larry Washington

May I ask how much is the layout fee for this magazine?

(0) Thank | Larry Washington

Everyone should.

(0) Thank | Dracula0411

Could you please clarify if the raw data only refers to the WB raw data or does it also include all raw data from immunofluorescence and qPCR?

(0) Thank | 农夫三拳有点疼

Can the system not save the information halfway through filling it out? Do you have to re-enter the information every time you go back in?

(0) Thank | 不太拗口的科研小白名

Submitted on July 9th, just making a note.

(0) Thank | Dracula0411

Hello, may I ask if you will still update your status? I have encountered the same confusion as you.

(0) Thank | Rebecca Lytton

How long does it take for editors to provide comments after receiving feedback from reviewers?

(0) Thank | Rebecca Lytton

Under review

(0) Thank | 子昂mio

Just wondering

(0) Thank | 子昂mio

What will happen if the format is wrong? I was so confused that I forgot to change the format directly, and I didn't upload the whole picture in WB

(0) Thank | 千花寻阳

Do you only need the WB, or do you need all the original data? Please let me know, thank you

(0) Thank | 太山昌盛

How are you doing? Have you been rejected, or do you need to withdraw your submission on your own?

(0) Thank | 月河子武

Is there any follow-up on this? I have been in this state for over a month

(0) Thank | 水月宏逸

Is one reviewer for this magazine enough? It's been over a month since we received one reviewer report and I'm going crazy

(0) Thank | 气甲忻愉

Hello, do you need the original data for all qPCR and staining images in the paper or just for WB?

(0) Thank | 努力啊大敏叡

Hi, Uu, may I ask what this status is? After the technical review, it will be peer-reviewed for 10 days. I'm not sure if it has been sent for review yet

(0) Thank | 平原觅雁

I don't need the entire film, but I usually keep at least 2-3 markers of the original film of this strip

(0) Thank | axiang4u

Hello, do we need to provide the full script as supplemental material for submitting data to WB?

(0) Thank | 水立方661

Submitted on June 25th, it wasn't until July 26th that an editor was assigned. On August 2nd, 18 reviewers were invited, with the first reviewer quickly taking on the task and the second reviewer accepting on the 6th. On August 23rd, feedback was received from one reviewer, followed by the second on September 1st. However, the editor did not respond until September 22nd, requesting major revisions. One reviewer had few and easily answerable questions, while the other posed 3 pages of questions, but overall was quite courteous. After a thorough one-month revision, including 4-5 additional experiments, the manuscript was revised on October 22nd. On October 24th, the journal invited the two reviewers again, and the article was accepted on November 1st. The second reviewer praised the high quality of our revisions

(0) Thank | axiang4u