Very fast, major+minor+accept, submitted for review in less than twelve hours, the first review result returned in less than twenty-four hours, and the final reviewer was also very positive. The review process ended in over twenty days, with over ten reviewers involved, and ultimately three reviewers completed the process. Reviewer two provided very detailed feedback, but the good thing was that they offered specific suggestions for improvement. Following their suggestions, the revisions were made accordingly. Reviewer three was relatively negative, but did not provide much feedback, giving a major revision. After making the necessary changes, a minor revision was requested after a week, with reviewer two pointing out a few minor issues. Finally, the paper was accepted. Overall, the process was very fast, with a higher chance of rejection in the beginning but improving as it progressed.

(0) 讚！ | yuan777l

This time, almost 70% of our energy was spent dealing with Reviewer 3. Whether his opinions were malicious or benevolent, whether they were right or nonsense, we fully respected them, expressed our gratitude, and thanked him for giving us the opportunity to clarify the issue. Thank you for pointing out ways to improve our paper... and so on. In short, it was frustrating.

In the end, for the second review, we received two reports in one or two days, with one remaining stuck. At that time, we guessed that the remaining one was most likely Reviewer 3, and we thought it was over. We only hoped that he would miss the deadline and the editor would accept our paper based on the two existing reports. But damn it, he did submit the report at the last minute, and we thought it was over. The next day, our paper was accepted.

After reading Reviewer 3's comments, we have to say that sincerity is the ultimate weapon. Reviewer 3 simply could not bear to reject us. We carefully addressed all of his suggestions, whether reasonable or not, and we almost rewrote 60% of the main text and responded to his comments with 30 pages. He saw our efforts, immediately acknowledged our huge commitment, and said that the revised work was good. From his words, I could also sense that he genuinely did not want to reject us. There were still many weaknesses in our paper, and if he wanted to reject it, he could have easily done so.

(0) 讚！ | wgdgdgwed

But do you think it's a sure thing? Let me tell you, the biggest risk of this journal is that it only allows one round of revisions. This means that after one round of revisions, if the reviewers continue to raise concerns, your paper will be rejected. If your paper contains points that are easy to attack but difficult to defend perfectly within one round of revisions, such as claiming to have developed a new concept, and your revisions and responses do not convince the reviewers, your paper will be rejected.

In our case, Reviewer 3 clearly rejected the paper, raising dozens of concerns, each one very harsh and even fatal. His review method is to scrutinize every word and sentence in your paper to find any flaws he can criticize, and he even distorted our research, coming up with a bunch of unfounded opinions. This is very difficult, we need to silence him completely in one round of revisions and not allow any new feedback (as new feedback will result in rejection).

(0) 讚！ | wgdgdgwed

I submitted three times, all of them went to review, and the review process is really fast. However, I only got accepted once. There are two main risks with this journal. The first time, the reviewers were given very short time to review, and if you encounter a careless reviewer, you're done for. The first time, it was major + major + reject, normally two majors should make a decision, but reviewer 3 submitted the report at the last minute and completely rejected it. He didn't even read our paper, and even raised doubts like "the model does not control variables." When I read his report, I even doubted if he was evaluating my research. Then the editor-in-chief directly rejected the paper. The second time, it was major + reject, there's nothing much to say about this, our paper really wasn't good enough, we accept that. The third time, we encountered the same situation as the first time, major + major + reject, the third report was also submitted at the last minute, resulting in a rejection. But, here's the twist, we got a new editor-in-chief. The previous editor-in-chief was said to reject papers as long as there was a rejection. This time, the editor-in-chief let us revise based on the major comments.

(0) 讚！ | wgdgdgwed

The speed is fast, the submission volume is large, and the acceptance rate is less than 10%. It is expected to receive over 6000 papers this year. It is a bimonthly publication, with about 80-100 papers published per issue, not exceeding 600 papers per year. Submitted on May 27th, reviewed the same day, received revise and resubmit on June 20th. Four reviewers provided over 30 comments, with only one opportunity for revisions. Resubmitted on July 20th, accepted on August 3rd, with highly efficient editors. The overall cost-effectiveness is very high, with an impact factor of 11.0, and it is listed in the first quartile of the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) category of management studies by the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

(1) 讚！ | liutaidadao555

2024.6.2 submitted;
2024.6.2 under review;
2024.6.26 major;
2024.7.8 submitted;
Currently, one reviewer has accepted the review and has not provided comments yet, while another reviewer has not accepted the review yet.

(0) 讚！ | wsH

After being promoted to Zhongke TOP, it has become even more difficult to submit papers. This year, I submitted a new paper in the morning and received a response in the afternoon, very quickly, without affecting your ability to submit to another journal. I shared this with my friends around me, and they also tried it, but all of their submissions were rejected within half a day, without wasting their time.

One thing to note is that the external review process is quite fast. I have reviewed two papers for this journal this year, both requiring the review to be completed within 14 days. Generally, you can expect to receive external review feedback within a month.

(0) 讚！ | 丘山1995

【Time Process】Submitted in early August of the 23rd year, returned in early September.
【First round of external review】First reviewer made major revisions, with 5 suggestions, all accepted; Second reviewer made minor revisions, with 8 suggestions, all accepted.
【Second round of external review】At the end of November, the original first reviewer had no comments; the original second reviewer still had 2 suggestions, but the editor-in-chief did not allow any more modifications and directly rejected the submission.
【Key points of criticism】The second reviewer for minor revisions is quite eccentric. In response to the modifications made in the response, if you modify it well, he wants to write long essays on how he had doubts dispelled; if you don't modify it well, he still wants to write long essays on how he doesn't understand. The key is that a very common consumer behavior phenomenon has been explained in enough detail, with reference links provided to address his concerns, yet he still interprets it differently.
The first reviewer for major revisions, on the other hand, doesn't write a single word if there are no issues. He insists on writing lengthy responses to each of the 8 modification suggestions, which the editor-in-chief finds troublesome as it indicates there are still many issues.
【Personal suspicion】As the year comes to an end, I wonder if the slots are limited. The editor-in-chief directly rejected further modifications. After the New Year, this journal made it to the top of the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) Area 1 and had a decrease in the number of publications compared to the previous year, indicating an increase in difficulty.

(0) 讚！ | 丘山1995

2024.3.19 submit to journal
2024.3.19 under review
2024.4.16 major revise
2024.5.15 return to journal
2024.5.24 accept

(0) 讚！ | 刘小 同学

The first rejection received feedback from three external reviewers and the editor, with a lot of suggestions regarding the introduction, methodology, and details. After modifying the methodology for the second time, the paper was submitted again to the same journal. The timeline is as follows: it took a total of 5 and a half months from the second submission to online publication, and the suggestions from the editor and 6-7 external reviewers greatly improved the quality of the article. The impact factor in 2020 exceeded 7 points, and it is in the top 1% of journals in the JCR. Overall, it is a comprehensive journal and highly recommended for everyone to share!

(0) 讚！ | 小桃子

2019.11.02 submitted; 2019.11.07 under review; 2019.12.31 ready for decision; 2020.01.01 under review; 2020.01.13 ready for decision; 2020.01.16 rejected.
2020.03.18 reviewer invited; 2020.04.30 under review; 2020.06.04 ready for decision; 2020.06.05 under review.
2020.07.08 revision requested; 2020.07.14 under review; 2020.09.07 accepted; 2020.09.15 online; $1200, open access.

(3) 讚！ | 小桃子