Frontiers in Pharmacology

The first review was actually very fast, taking only half a month. However, there was a conflict of opinions between the two reviewers. It took a long time to invite the third reviewer. After urging for the submission once in the fourth month, I learned about the invitation of the third reviewer. Then I quickly received the third reviewer's acceptance of the comments. Overall, the editors of Frontiers in Pharmacology prioritize innovation and do not have strict requirements on workload. The second reviewer believed that the workload of the manuscript was too low and rejected it by casually mentioning a few shortcomings in innovation. Although there is no requirement to respond to rejection comments, I still wrote an email addressing each of the issues raised by reviewer 2. The editor has a discerning eye and can identify the highlights of the article, not influenced by individual reviewers' opinions, and agreed to accept it. I think the quality of this journal is still very high. Currently, this journal is classified as a top pharmaceutical journal in the Chinese Academy of Sciences, so it is worth submitting to.

Mid-January submission
End of January external review begins
End of February, three reviewers' comments returned
End of March, beginning of April, second review completed
Early April, editing and proofreading
April 15th, acceptance
Exactly three months from submission to acceptance. The assigned editor's efficiency was very high. One reviewer made straightforward comments during the first review, while the other two provided minor suggestions for revision. The second review pointed out some detail issues, but after making the necessary revisions, all three reviewers quickly approved. The editing and proofreading stage focused on formatting and writing errors, which were fixed and accepted on the same day. Overall, the submission process went smoothly.