Paper Review Records
All Paper Review Records
10 valid samples · Newest publication first
Review days = acceptance date − received date. PDF, DOI, and publisher-page sources are retained.
109
days
Dynamic patterns of long-acting reversible contraceptive use in Mexico: Method mix shift between intrauterine devices and implants and determinants of method choice
AuthorsStephanie Munduruca; Evelyn Fuentes-Rivera; Joaquin Arnoldo Escobar Trinidad; Raffaela Schiavon; Blair G. Darney
AffiliationsOregon Health and Science University, School of Medicine, Portland, OR, United States; Consejo Nacional de Población (CONAPO), Ciudad de México, Mexico; Independent consultant, Chiapas, Mexico; Independent consultant, Mexico City, Mexico; Oregon Health and Science University, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Portland, OR, United States; The Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, United States; OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Portland, OR, United States; Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica (INSP), Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico
137
days
Twelve-month outcomes of rotated copper intrauterine devices after immediate postpartum insertion
AuthorsThais Bezerra Vasconcelos de Castro; Aureliana Barboza da Silva Nóbrega; Conrado Milani Coutinho; Carolina Sales Vieira
AffiliationsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil; Departament of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lauro Wanderley University Hospital (HULW), Federal University of Paraiba (UFPB), João Pessoa, PB, Brazil
129
days
Postpartum contraception plans among a cohort of pregnant incarcerated individuals
AuthorsMary D. Carmody; Isabelle Falk; Sreya Upputuri; Suzanna Larkin; Jamie Jackson; Marcella Boynton; Carolyn Sufrin; Kavita Shah Arora; Andrea K. Knittel
AffiliationsThe Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
134
days
The experience of difficult implant and intrauterine device removals from the U.S. National Survey of Family Growth, 2017–2019
AuthorsLaura Dellplain; Mihiri Karunaratne; Brian T. Nguyen
AffiliationsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Los Angeles General Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States
172
days
Sedation or no sedation? Understanding intrauterine device placement preference among adolescents
AuthorsShira Fishbach; Erin Isaacson; Rebecca Richardson; Monica W. Rosen; Melina Dendrinos; Kate McCracken
AffiliationsUniversity of Michigan, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ann Arbor, MI, United States
140
days
Comparing the TCu380A and a small Nova-T copper IUD: secondary analysis of discontinuation probabilities, bleeding outcomes and satisfaction in nulliparous participants from a 3-year randomized trial
AuthorsDavid Hubacher; Courtney A. Schreiber; David K. Turok; Stephanie B. Teal; Anita L. Nelson; Jeffrey T. Jensen; Melissa J. Chen; Kavita Nanda; Katharine O. White; Ila Dayananda; Pai-Lien Chen; Beatrice A. Chen; Alisa B. Goldberg; Jennifer L. Kerns; Clint Dart; Michael A. Thomas; David F. Archer; Jill E. Brown; Paula M. Castaño; Anne E. Burke; Bliss Kaneshiro; Diana L. Blithe
AffiliationsFHI 360, 359 Blackwell Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701, United States; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Medical Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States; Essential Access Health, Los Angeles, CA, United States; Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, United States; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Boston University, Boston, MA, United States; Planned Parenthood Greater New York, New York, NY, United States; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh and Magee-Womens Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States; Premier Research, Morrisville, NC, United States; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, United States; Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, United States; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, United States; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Women's Health, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, United States; Contraceptive Development Program, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States
211
days
Contraceptive practices during monitoring for molar pregnancy: A mixed methods analysis
AuthorsSydney Mei Sheffield; Katherine C. Fitch; Gloria Broadwater; Donna Niedzwiecki; Jill M. Hagey; Brittany A. Davidson
AffiliationsDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States; Duke Cancer Institute Biostatistics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
150
days
Findings from the choices about abortion CaRE options (CARE) study: A discrete-choice experiment
AuthorsJonas J. Swartz; Alicja Mastylak; Semra Ozdemir; Jui-Chen Yang; Sydney M. Sheffield; Alice F. Cartwright; Tara Romano; Gloria de los Santos; Jill Sergison; Beverly Gray; Shelby D. Reed
AffiliationsDivision of Women's Community and Population Health, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States; Duke-Margolis Institute for Health Policy, Durham, NC, United States; Preference Evaluation Research (PrefER) Group, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States; Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States; Guttmacher Institute, New York, New York, United States; Pro-Choice NC, Durham, NC, United States; Action NC, Durham, NC, United States; Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, NC, United States
116
days
Awareness of abortion medications by mail options among abortion patients at 6 clinics: Findings from a pilot study
AuthorsRachel K. Jones; Doris W. Chiu
AffiliationsGuttmacher Institute, Research Division, 125 Maiden Lane, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10038, United States
134
days
Reasons patients decide to replace or extend their long-acting reversible contraceptive before the full duration of pregnancy prevention: A qualitative study
AuthorsFrancesca E. Selmoni; Anjali Krishnan; Maya Pai; Nicole Rigler; Karen S. Greiner; Sheila K. Mody
AffiliationsDivision of Complex Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, 9300 Campus Point Drive, Mail Code 7433, La Jolla, San Diego, CA 92037, United States; University of California San Diego, School of Medicine, San Diego, CA, United States
Expert Matching · Case Demo
Turn Your Submission Goalsinto a Verifiable Journal Plan
Share your field, deadline, and author profile. CrushSCI uses real review records to suggest a title direction, shortlist journals, and estimate timelines.
Client
I work in environmental engineering and need an SCI paper published within three months. I have no grant funding or prominent co-author. Which journals could I target?
CrushSCI
Yes. We will first screen for feasibility against the 90-day deadline, then identify comparable papers without grant support or prominent co-authors. The final shortlist will prioritize research quality and journal scope.
- Suggested title
- Machine Learning and Life-Cycle Assessment for Predicting and Optimizing Carbon Emissions in Urban Wastewater Treatment
- Database shortlist
- Environmental Technology & Innovation
SampleLatest 5 valid paper samples from 2026
Average review96.4 days
Median77 days