I submitted 3 articles, and 2 of which were accepted. 1 was rejected by the editor (the reason is that there was a cross-over with the previous article). It feels like a difficult process, but there must be originality and innovation, and it must be systematic

(0) Thank | yungliu@smu.edu.cn

Research on the background, significance, and current status of development is composed in the first paragraph. The second paragraph introduces the problems that have not been solved or urgently need to be solved at present, leading to the researcher's motivation and significance of the study. The third paragraph explains the specific purpose of the researcher's study

(0) Thank | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

Important literature, if available, can be referenced in both cases, but the emphasis should be on highlighting the differences between the two

(0) Thank | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

Is the important literature in the results or described in the introduction?

(0) Thank | 陶宜三岁啦

What does the three-part introduction refer to?

(0) Thank | Darlene Pepys

The quality of this magazine articles has been declining year by year. I wonder if changing the new editor-in-chief this year can save it

(0) Thank | 太山雅昶

The impact factor is falling straight, and the fluster is flustered. This journal will not go bankrupt, right?

(0) Thank | slby

So harsh! After such a big drop, who dares to invest in the future??

(0) Thank | 凌霄高洁

It's so frustrating that last year I got over 2 points for my publication, but this year it's only just over 1 point. Will it decrease even more next year? Who would be willing to invest in it!

(0) Thank | 凌霄高洁

Review speed: 3.0 Experience sharing: Submitted 3 papers, 2 were accepted and 1 was rejected by the editor (reason being overlapping content with a previous paper). The difficulty level feels average, but there must be an innovative point and systematic approach. The editor is patient, but the chief editor has recently changed

(0) Thank | Elaine

Submitted on February 28, 2014, the manuscript quickly entered the review process. However, it took two months for the three reviewers to be identified and agree to review the manuscript. The first review was received on June 2, with major revisions requested to be completed within two months. We conducted additional experiments, which revealed some new findings. The revised manuscript was resubmitted on August 2, and on September 5, the second review came back with the decision: "Accept subject to minor revision." After making adjustments and providing explanations as requested, we resubmitted on September 8. Eight days later (September 16), the editor-in-chief officially announced acceptance of the manuscript. The journal seemed rigorous, so we were willing to spend extra time to avoid errors

(0) Thank | 凌霄高洁

Can we make it to the top 3 next year? Let's discuss

(0) Thank | 凌霄高洁

Magazine Name: Mutation Research - Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis 
Area of Expertise: Toxicology 
Submission Date: June 2, 2009 
Submission Method (submission system or by mail, if there is a submission system, please provide the submission link): http://ees.elsevier.com/mut/ 
Revision Date: August 5, 2009, rejected 
Modification Method (major revision, minor revision, rejection): rejection 
Acceptance Date: No 
Is there a page charge: No 
Shared experiences or lessons learned: 
1. The Elsvier submission system is not efficient. After submitting, the editor began processing after a week, and two days later, rejection was made claiming it did not fit the scope of the journal. Then, an email was sent canceling the rejection and entering the review status. After two months, the editor rejected it again, still stating it did not fit the submission scope, without any review comments. 
2. Reasons for rejection: The editor believed it did not fit the submission scope of the journal. 
3. It is advisable to be cautious when submitting to this journal, reasons being: slow review process, low efficiency, unstable Impact Factor

(0) Thank | 凌霄高洁