审稿速度:3.0 | 投稿命中率:75.0
偏重的研究方向：外科学;综述;肿瘤外科
经验分享：投稿经验：
外科学方向，综述。
2025年4月8日Submit；
2025年4月27日Required reviews complete；
2025年5月6日Revise给了6.4号前修回，修改不多，花了10天左右修回；
2025年5月13日Revision submit，当天打回，需要上传没有标注的修改稿，重新上传提交，然后很快就变成Under Review；
2025年6月3日Required reviews complete；
2025年6月4日Under Review，有一个审稿人给了负面的意见，于是重新邀请了审稿人；
2025年6月15日Required reviews complete，后面很快变成With Editor；
2025年6月25日Revise，给了 3 周时间，比较小的修改，我用了一周返修回去；
2025年7月1日Revision Submit；
2025年7月2日With Editor；
2025年7月3日Decision In Process；
2025年7月4日Accept。
总体感觉这个杂志的编辑处理非常快，审稿也比较严，一审三个专家，二审四个专家，都给了比较客观的建议和意见。总体来说非常不错。

5 1 举报

审稿速度:6.0 | 投稿命中率:5.0
经验分享：Avoid Submitting to the International Journal of Surgery (IJS) – A Waste of Time and an Unfair Review Process
I am sharing my frustrating experience with International Journal of Surgery (IJS) to warn fellow researchers about its unfair and nontransparent review process. Despite undergoing rigorous peer review, addressing all concerns, and spending nearly six months revising my manuscript, IJS ultimately rejected my paper based on an unexplained editorial decision—completely disregarding peerreview feedback.
1. The False Promise of Peer Review
Like most authors, I trusted that the peerreview process at IJS was meaningful and fair.
My manuscript was sent for multiple rounds of peer review, during which I made extensive revisions.
The reviewers provided constructive feedback, and I carefully addressed every comment in the revised manuscript.
However, after months of effort, IJS rejected my paper NOT based on reviewer feedback, but purely on an editorial decision that my study “did not meet the journal’s threshold.”
If the editorial board had already decided that my paper was unsuitable, why waste six months of my time in peer review?
This means that no matter how much effort authors put into revision, IJS editors can still override reviewers and reject papers arbitrarily.
2. IJS Wasted Six Months of My Time
My manuscript was under review for nearly half a year before I received the final rejection.
Instead of rejecting it outright in the initial editorial screening, IJS led me through unnecessary revision rounds, making me believe that peer review mattered.
If an article is ultimately judged only by the editorial board, why even send it for peer review?
This not only wasted my time but also delayed the publication of my work in other, more reputable journals.
For researchers working with timesensitive data (e.g., Global Burden of Disease studies), such delays significantly reduce the impact and relevance of findings.
3. Serious Lack of Transparency & Editorial Power Abuse
What is most concerning is that IJS admits that final decisions are NOT based solely on peerreview reports.
Some reviewer comments were kept private and never shared with me, meaning I had no chance to address them.
The final rejection letter made vague claims about "impact, novelty, and significance" without specific explanations.
I suspect that IJS editors have excessive power to override reviewers, making the review process a mere formality.
This goes against the principles of fair academic publishing! A legitimate peerreview system should be transparent and based on scientific merit, not subjective editorial preferences.
4. A Warning to Fellow Researchers: Avoid IJS
Based on my experience, I strongly advise against submitting to IJS, especially if you are working on:
Global health / burden of disease research – IJS will delay your work unnecessarily.
Clinical research – Unless your work is groundbreaking, they may reject it after months of revision.
Timesensitive studies – IJS’s inefficient process may make your findings outdated by the time you receive a decision.
The journal claims to be selective (less than 10% acceptance rate), but in reality, it appears to be mismanaging the review process.
If more researchers boycott IJS, the journal will be forced to improve its transparency and fairness.
5. Final Thoughts & Call to Action
If you have had a similar experience with IJS, share your story and warn others!
We must hold journals accountable for their review policies and protect authors from unethical publishing practices.
IJS is not a trustworthy journal for serious researchers. Do not waste your time!

166 1 举报

审稿速度:2.0
偏重的研究方向：外科手术
经验分享：今日接收，特来分享经验给需要的同道们 原创性研究，外科手术相关，乳癌 4.20 submitted to journal 4.21 with editor，当天under review 4.21-6.10，一直显示under review，但日期变动了好几次，印象中是时隔一周变一次日期 6.10 revise，三个审稿人返回意见，一个中修两个小修，编辑给了21天 6.28 返修回去R1，立即显示with editor，当天变成under review 7.6 变成with editor 7.7 变成decision in process 7.9 变成with editor 7.10 早上变成decision in process，并发了邮件提醒交150欧元的试验注册费，立刻交150欧后，下午接收

199 21 举报

审稿速度:6.0 | 投稿命中率:5.0
经验分享：8.30 提交 当天外审
十月底一审结束
十二月月底二审结束
然后，四个审稿人全部同意接受，编辑拒稿
不想要直接desk rejection，浪费我四个多月时间，真他妈无语

57 6 举报

如果多次Required reviews complete后变成Under review,是不是被编辑拒稿的可能性比较大

21 7 举报

审稿速度:2.0 | 投稿命中率:50.0
偏重的研究方向：重症医学
经验分享：从投稿到接收一共两个月，不具有参考意义。

10 1 举报

今天成功接收GBD研究一篇

222 12 举报

审稿速度:2.0 | 投稿命中率:50.0
经验分享：年前投稿，年后审稿意见回来，3个审稿人，1个审稿人提了统计方面的问题，另外1个审稿人提了一些小问题，第3个审稿人直接接收。编辑给了一个月的时间修回，修回后under review 2周，with editor 1周，dip1天接收。感觉比较看重研究的创新性。

19 3 举报

垃圾杂志，慎投，邀请了11个审稿人，9个事实审稿，耗了这么长时间，绝大多数审稿人同意接收，R2最后编辑部拒了。进行申诉，编辑部回应不完全以审稿人意见为准。这不浪费作者和审稿人时间嚒？建议过有人把引用International journey of surgery的参考给删了，把杂志影响因子彻底打下来，省得误导后来的人投稿

28 5 举报

想问下投的是correspondence,版面费1万4，这种WO S可以检索到吗 我看了既往有的可以有的没有 不知道为什么

18 0 举报