2020-10-16

Review Speed: 1.0 Experience Sharing: It's hard to say about this journal. The supervisor is the associate editor of this journal. A classmate in the lab submitted to this journal and got seven reviewers. For my own paper, there were three reviewers. One of them asked for a bunch of meaningless data to be added, but my supervisor didn't do it. After making some arguments in the revisions, they still didn't agree. So, we decided to submit to the Journal of Biological Chemistry instead, and it was accepted immediately. My supervisor was also helpless, not sure if this journal was strict or had problems

2020-10-16

Review Speed: 1.0 | Submission Acceptance Rate: 50.0
Emphasis on research direction: Chemical Toxicology
Experience sharing: It's hard to say for this journal. My supervisor is the associate editor of this journal. A classmate in the lab submitted to this journal and had seven reviewers. As for my own paper, there were three reviewers and one of them requested a lot of meaningless data to be added. My supervisor didn't add them, argued after the revision, but they still disagreed. So I switched to the Journal of Biological Chemistry, and it was accepted directly. My supervisor was also at a loss, not sure if this journal is strict or flawed

2019-02-23

Review speed: 3.0 | Submission hit rate: 25.0
Experience Sharing: Definitely a bad journal. Submitted in early February 2018, only received the first review result in late April, and was asked to resubmit. Because only RT-PCR was done, they requested verification of protein results using WB, and also required many experiments to verify that the substance we studied had no interference with the experimental results (in fact, this has been verified by many articles already). Considering the reputation of ACS and the reasonable requests made, I spent a lot of money on additional experiments, and made careful modifications to the language, drawings, which took almost a month. Resubmitted in late July and early August, and waited for more than two months again, then in October, the result was given with the request for revision. The original reviewer agreed, but the editor added two more reviewers, with experimental requirements that were somewhat optional. This time, I did not do too many additional experiments, argued a bit, and resubmitted on December 9th, then received the result by the end of December, saying there were issues with similarity detection and requested reduction in similarity. I thought everything would be fine after this revision, but unexpectedly the editor did not send it for review (I wonder what the editor was doing for the two to three weeks). Made another revision in early January 2019, received revision requests again by the end of January, the two new reviewers requested some irrelevant validation experiments. Although these experiments were not difficult, buying reagents and conducting experiments were still costly, and these model methods were methods that many people had already verified. I didn't quite understand the significance of revalidating. In February, I informed the editor that I did not intend to continue revising the article according to the reviewer's requests, and it took over a week for the editor to respond. It wasted more than a year's time, and nothing was achieved. During the submission period of this article, I submitted another one in August, to the same editor, and received feedback in just a few days, once again requiring additional verification experiments (I wondered if the editor was blind, as these had already been verified in the previous submission, why verify them again). However, I still supplemented these experiments, resubmitted in late September and early October. On December 31st, it took more than two months to receive the first review result, two reviewers requested additional experiments, similar routine, requesting all PCR results to be verified using WB, and one very unreasonable suggestion, stating that this is an in vitro experiment and requires in vivo validation of this effect. I had already supplemented a few key experiments, and was planning to argue about the rest. But after seeing the results of the previous submission, I immediately contacted the editor to withdraw the article to avoid wasting another year. My impression of this journal is, if you are not a big shot, or do not have a lot of time and funds, do not waste your time here as there are too many requirements and the review speed is extremely slow, which greatly affects students' graduation. This journal is now downgraded to Tier 3 in the Chinese Academy of Sciences classification, and only receives around 300 submissions a year, so even if accepted, it does not seem meaningful. Therefore, I strongly do not recommend submitting to this journal. It has been a long time since I shared my experience of submitting an article to a journal. But this journal is really bizarre, and I have to come here to vent a few words. Although my research group is not very famous, we publish about ten articles each year, and we have never encountered such a deceiving journal

2018-12-07

Leading journals of toxicology research on chemicals accept articles on both theoretical and experimental aspects, with a requirement for a certain level of creativity. The review process takes two to three months

2018-12-07

Leading journals in toxicology research of chemicals, calculations and experimental articles are accepted, require some creativity, review period two or three months

2017-03-29

Submission success rate: 95.0 Experience sharing: cheap NBA jerseys with free shipping NFL elite jersey

2017-03-24

Submission success rate: 95.0 Experience sharing: cheaparsenaljersey-elvia-ebayjersey

2016-09-22

Review Speed: 2.0 Experience Sharing: This is my first submission and all three reviewers' comments were positive. The editor was very meticulous, making many detailed revisions to the language and even to the references in the final draft

2015-11-13

Review Speed: 1.0
Experience sharing: After two revisions, the editing efficiency is very high, and the suggestions made by the reviewer are very valuable. It's a very good journal, and I feel like I've learned a lot throughout the whole process

2015-11-13

After receiving the modification twice, the editing efficiency is very high, and the comments from the reviewers are also very valuable. Very good journals, I feel that I have learned a lot in the whole process.