There are 4 reviewers, and 3 of them have provided professional editing suggestions. Let's make the necessary changes. Oh!

(0) 讚！ | 辉灏

I sought guidance from someone and the submission went smoothly, the editor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences was very helpful.

(0) 讚！ | 康帅

I have been envious for seven days, but still no news from the editor.

(0) 讚！ | ggboom

Rejected in 5 days, very fast.

(0) 讚！ | caiccu

The review process is quite slow, it takes several weeks to find an editor, it won't work without at least half a year.

(0) 讚！ | 辉灏

My main job is computational physics. By chance, I collaborated with the medical school on an npjdm article and it was successfully accepted. However, overall, the journals in the npj series are relatively slow, partly because it is difficult to find reviewers, and also because frequent technical reviews waste time.

The manuscript was submitted on April 21, 2025. It entered technical review that same day, passed the technical review, and entered the editorial assignment stage. The editorial assignment was completed on April 22, 2025. Peer review began on April 23, 2025, with reviewers accepting the invitation the same day. Review comments were received on May 1, 2025. Revisions were requested on July 13, 2025. Revised manuscript was submitted on August 14, 2025. Supplementary corrections were requested on August 28, 2025, and submitted the same day. Passed technical review on September 4, 2025, and reviewers were re-invited that day, with acceptance on the same day. Review comments were received on October 1, 2025. Further revisions were requested on October 9, 2025, and revised manuscript was submitted on October 13, 2025. Passed technical review on October 29, 2025, with reviewers invited that day and accepting on November 2, 2025. Review comments were received on November 7, 2025. The manuscript was finally accepted on November 29, 2025, and entered the publishing and copyright processing stage.

(0) 讚！ | Y. Zeng

I have been in the review process for 6 months now, we have gone through 3 rounds of revision. It has been one month since the last revision (minor) and I have not heard back from the journal. I can see on the portal that the reviewer has submitted the report to the editor. I have also reached out to the editor but was ghosted. I am not sure what is taking so long, has anyone else been in this situation before?

(0) 讚！ | meenlarawlani6688@gmail.com

Are you still checking?

(0) 讚！ | sdsddd111

Can any friends who have submitted before share how long the technical check usually takes? It's been two weeks already and it feels so slow.

(0) 讚！ | wytv

The speed is very slow.

(0) 讚！ | jz2333

Submission received 19 Sep 2024
Editor assigned 20 Sep 2024
First reviewer(s) invited 24 Sep 2024
Reviewer report(s) received 08 Oct 2024
Revision requested 15 Nov 2024
Revision received 05 Dec 2024
Submission passed technical check 19 Dec 2024
First reviewer(s) invited 21 Dec 2024
Reviewer(s) accepted 21 Dec 2024
Reviewer report(s) received 22 Dec 2024
Submission accepted 10 Jan 2025
Submission is in publishing and rights 16 Jan 2025

(2) 讚！ | 死鬼001

First submitted to the Nature subsidiary journal, rejected in 4 days, suggested to transfer to Communications Medicine (a new journal, not yet Impact Factor).
Resubmitted to NC, rejected in 10 days, suggested to transfer to npj Digital Medicine, transferred directly through the transfer link, rejected in 4 days, given an Appeal Request opportunity, but probably not useful

(0) 讚！ | Lissajous

After submission, three rounds of revision comments were given, one major revision and two minor revisions. The opinions of the two external reviewers were very positive. However, in the third round, they suddenly raised concerns about how to choose between fixed and random effects in the meta-analysis method. Following the Cochrane guidelines, the analysis was redone, and the results under both modes were consistent. But the other party did not accept it and chose to reject the submission. If that's the case, then all meta-analysis methods published by the journal are problematic and should be retracted. The editorial team is very unprofessional in handling this and took 6 months to reject it. Besides this methodological issue, they also claimed there were problems with novelty. If that was the case, why didn't they reject it in the first round? Why wait for 6 months and invite three rounds of revision? I really can't understand.

(1) 讚！ | Ethanol

It will take more than a month to submit for review? So slow?

(0) 讚！ | hugo

Supplement to the previous content:
2022.06.02 Accepted in principle but with some minor modifications allowed + submission of editable files.
2022.06.10 Submission.
2022.06.16 Official acceptance.

The work is about machine learning prediction of Alzheimer's disease in the elderly. There were three reviewers in the first round, with two providing many suggestions and raising some questions. One reviewer leaned towards rejection, stating that the title might be exaggerating the work. After adding two additional experiments, both reviewers agreed to accept the paper before the second round of review. The overall quality of the review was very high, and the suggestions made by the three reviewers were very pertinent, greatly improving the article itself.

(0) 讚！ | Kyro

2021.12.18 Submission
2022.01.25 Under Review
2022.02.23 First Round of Revision
2022.04.22 First Round of Revision Returned
2022.06.02 Accepted

(23) 讚！ | Kyro