In 2017, I submitted an article. There were 4 reviewers. The comments given by the reviewers were very detailed. After revision, it was accepted and is now highly cited. I submitted as a co-author in 2019, and the quality is average. There were 4 reviewers, and it got accepted after multiple revisions. I submitted again in August this year, and the quality is acceptable. There were three reviewers. One reviewer did not give any comments, directly said that the method needed to be improved, and rejected it. Another reviewer posted wrong comments and rejected it. We appealed, and the editor-in-chief agreed to let us resubmit, but said that we should strengthen scientific contributions and not submit it as case study. It was resubmitted after revision in October, and sent to 5 reviewers. Two directly agreed to accept it, one rejected it, one thought that there was no contribution, and one picked up a bunch of minor defects and rejected the manuscript. In conclusion, it depends on the luck for submission. I feel that after the influence of journal has increased, the number of submissions has increased dramatically, resulting in a serious shortage of suitable and competent reviewers. Many articles are sent for review blindly.

(4) Thank | ikiller

The article was partial to social science. It was submitted on February 28 and accepted on October 6. There were 4 major revisions during the period. The editor and the external reviewers were still responsible. 4 days after the submission, it was online. The efficiency was really high. It is a journal worthy of submission. I hope Sustainable Cities Society (SCS) will be included in Q1 as soon as possible!

(1) Thank | Apollo0712

The manuscript was submitted on June 11; I received the email from the editor on June 15, stating that it is necessary to strengthen the relationship with the journal’s scope and audience. Therefore, after a minor revision, it was resubmitted on June 16. The comments of revision were received On July 30. There were two reviewers, but only one gave specific comments, the other one should have acceptted it. Finally, the editor required a major revision (actually, the comments of the reviewers were easy to address). The revised manuscript was submitted in early August, and it was accepted on August 28. I was still waiting for the proof now.

(0) Thank | King!

My article was about partial urban environment greening. My paper was accepted after I revised it.

(1) Thank | kongling927@yahoo.com

Hey bro, just wanted to ask if there are any edits that need to be avoided.

(0) Thank | LE

Please translate the following paragraph to English: 0706 accept

(1) Thank | 毕业快跑路

0706 submission
0707 Under Review inviting 11 reviewers, 1 accepted

(0) Thank | 拉比小白

The speed of this journal depends entirely on the editor.
If you encounter a tough editor, it may take two months to go online once...
And they are persistent in inviting the same group of reviewers...
It has been 10 months since the first review and still no response, really unlucky....

(0) Thank | sssssssy

0330 major revision;
0428 revision submitted;
0526 minor revision; (1 acceptance, 1 reviewer suggestion for experiment)
0607 revision submitted;
0608 under review (revised due to strong reviewer suggestion for additional comparative experiment)

(0) Thank | 毕业快跑路

2025.06.05 with editor
2025.06.09 under review
Eleven reviewers were invited at once, and six of them accepted.

(0) Thank | leere

Encountering difficulties in finding appropriate reviewers for the manuscript once again, the editor sent an email stating: Despite our best efforts, we were unable to obtain high-quality reviews for the manuscript. Regrettably, the feedback received from referees did not meet the standard necessary to make an informed editorial decision. In the interest of avoiding further delays in publication, we have made the decision to reject the manuscript. Despite inviting over 20 referees, many either declined to review or submitted reports that were inadequate for making an informed decision.

(0) Thank | 艾森伯格

Provide a submission timeline for your reference:
2025.2.24 with editor
2025.2.25 under review, invited 15 people
2025.2.26 one reviewer accepted the review
2025.2.28 second reviewer accepted the review
2025.3.31 major revision
2025.4.22 resubmitted to journal
2025.4.23 under review
2025.5.24 accepted
Overall, the efficiency of this journal's editorial process is very high. It can be said that it is usually processed on the same day or at most within one day, giving a very positive impression of this journal! It is a authoritative journal in the field of urban studies, highly recommended!

(0) Thank | GLORIALL

Did the original poster submit the manuscript for review again after major revisions? Or did the editor make a direct decision to accept it after editing? Thank you, original poster.

(0) Thank | GLORIALL

Submission on 25th February 2024
Major Revision on 19th January 2025
Revised Submission on 18th February 2025
Major Revision on 5th April 2025
Revised Submission on 8th April 2025
Acceptance on 10th May 2025
The research focuses on the intersection of artificial intelligence, with a total of four reviewers involved in the submission process. The reviewers have provided numerous comments, making the submission process quite challenging. Please submit with caution and urgency.

(0) Thank | ACLuke

5.17 Submit with editor and hope for review. It's a bit thermodynamics and algorithms-related. Not sure if it's relevant or not.

(0) Thank | 李力

4.29 Under review Sent out 20 invitations in one go.

(0) Thank | 艾森伯格

May I ask what the current outcome is now?

(0) Thank | 艾森伯格

I couldn't find it in the email, please help.

(0) Thank | ZXBJ

4.25 The submission deadline for the journal has changed once.
I am curious if this journal is the same as those of Elsevier? Does the change in the submission deadline have any correlation with the acceptance rate? I would like to ask for advice from senior researchers who have experienced similar situations.

(0) Thank | 艾森伯格

Check your email.

(0) Thank | 艾森伯格

Can you please tell me how to see which editor has been assigned?

(0) Thank | ZXBJ

Which editor has been assigned to review it?

(0) Thank | ZXBJ

4.24 submission is "with editor", awaiting external review, wishing for good luck.

(0) Thank | shi小li

The article was assigned to Dr. Mohammad Sameti, but after looking at his profile, it seems he is not from the same field at all. It looks like choosing the right category is very important.

(0) Thank | 艾森伯格

4.22 Submit→With editor
This is my first submission to this journal, and it does not have much content related to cities. I am unsure if it aligns with the theme.

(0) Thank | 艾森伯格