Awesome! Just received the article, and the magazine has already reached over 5 stars. Keep it up! Keep up the good work.

(0) 讚！ | nightkids

Is there a Dip session after the first-instance RRC?

(0) 讚！ | mionzyyy

Submission on January 20th, major revisions on March 20th, revised again on April 6th, second review on April 7th, accepted on May 7th. The editing efficiency is quite high, it's just that the external reviewers delayed some time. However, overall it was still relatively fast and smooth.

(0) 讚！ | nightkids

The submission was made on January 7, 2026, and received feedback on February 18, giving 20 days for revisions. The revised version was sent back on March 2. After waiting for a long time, received feedback on the morning of April 28 for further revisions, which were sent back in the afternoon. Received the revised version on the morning of April 29, and received the final proofreading email in the evening. Today, on April 30, the proofreading is complete and the submission has been made.

(0) 讚！ | lzp1994

Do you need to submit original data for this journal?

(0) 讚！ | zhuzhuoni

Grown up, well done

(0) 讚！ | 凌霄永言

Relationship between the research findings and relevant theories; Limitations or shortcomings in your research; Significance and practical application value of the research in real-life situations; Suggestions for future research

(0) 讚！ | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

We suggest dividing discussions on research limitations into three parts: (1) identifying research limitations; (2) explaining research limitations in detail; and (3) proposing future research directions or improvement plans. By discussing research limitations in this order, you can clearly point out research shortcomings without compromising the quality and validity of the study

(0) 讚！ | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

What can be discussed in a discussion?

(0) 讚！ | Oswald Edie

How to write about limitations in a discussion?

(0) 讚！ | 魂魄彦露

Have you reworked it? I reworked and resubmitted on June 2nd, and it has been under review since then

(0) 讚！ | Gail Fred

Submission Success Rate: 50.0 Experience Sharing: 1.21 Submission - 6.27 Acceptance requires patience, keep it up!

(0) 讚！ | Eunice Trevelyan

A very efficient magazine indeed. The submission was made on December 4th, 20XX and we received the review comments in just over 20 days. The revisions required were minimal, but we were given two months to make the changes. There was no request for additional experiments, only the quantitative improvement of the data. Due to personal matters, it took nearly 30 days for us to complete the revisions, which were submitted on January 25th. Surprisingly, the revised article was accepted on January 26th. Truly very fast, and the editor was also very nice throughout the process. The entire process did not exceed two months.

(1) 讚！ | tijsnyy89

I would like to ask you, how have you been lately, senior?

(0) 讚！ | Sebastiane Whitman

It is a relatively efficient journal, and the editor is very efficient and friendly. As long as you confirm it clearly has innovation and written rigorously, and the figures are good, it will not take too long. The manuscript was submitted in March; major revision was notified in the early-May, and 3 months was given (for revision); I was slow, and the revised manuscript was submitted in July; It was accepted in 2 to 3 weeks. It is recommended to the masters and doctors in neurology.

(2) 讚！ | Sohee Choi

I would like to ask if this magazine can only be operated through communication. I am one of the authors, and I could still see the status "under review" a while ago, but these days I can no longer see this article

(0) 讚！ | 蒙德合美

Feeling anxious. Is there more experience to share?

(0) 讚！ | 断门绮风

Is there any more experience to share?

(0) 讚！ | 断门绮风

Is this magazine so dragging?

(0) 讚！ | 断门绮风

It has been almost 50 days since I submitted the application, and it has been under review the whole time

(0) 讚！ | 断门绮风

Just submitted my article, not sure if this magazine is any good

(0) 讚！ | 无冬映雪

113.106.172.156        Super torturous journal. Submitted at the end of April, the review ended in mid-May, but it was delayed until the end of June to give comments and request major revisions. At the end of August, the first revision was sent back, thinking it could speed up, but it was shelved for two months with the associate editor before being resubmitted to the original reviewer. In early November, the second review comments came out, asking for revisions and raising some irrelevant questions. The second revision was returned on November 19, thinking it could be accepted, but a week later it fell back into the hands of that associate editor. Another indefinite wait. Having published nearly 20 SCI articles, this is the first time I have encountered such a situation. I really want to say thank you to this journal for forging my mind, goodbye. What kind of mentality are those who like it?

(0) 讚！ | 无冬映雪

Super tormenting magazine. The submission was at the end of April, and the review was supposed to be finished by mid-May. However, it was delayed until the end of June for comments and major revisions. The first revision was returned at the end of August, hoping for a faster process. But it was shelved by the associate editor for two months before being sent back to the original reviewer. The second round of comments came in early November, asking for further edits and raising irrelevant issues. The second revision was returned on November 19, thinking it would be accepted, only to be handed back to the associate editor a week later. Another indefinite wait. Having submitted nearly 20 SCI articles, this is the first time encountering such a situation. I really want to say to this journal in the future, thank you for forging my patience, goodbye

(0) 讚！ | 凌霄高洁

Is it going to be low to the limit?

(0) 讚！ | 凌霄高洁

Review Speed: 3.0 | Acceptance Rate: 50.0
Experience Sharing: Submitted an article, took a little over 2 months for review by two reviewers. The first reviewer provided a lot of feedback, mostly related to minor revisions and adding references; the second reviewer asked for clarification on some ambiguous descriptions. Ultimately, the article was rejected. The journal required a Graphical Abstract, which took some time to prepare. Not recommended for those seeking a quick publication

(0) 讚！ | 深渊玉琅