AAPG BULLETIN

The actual time is about 14 months. Usually the project is too busy and I would not post such comments. This is really hurting too much. It is necessary to share the experience to prevent more people from being fooled by it: The journal review cycle is extremely long and the reviewers are unprofessional. It was submitted in January 2019, under review in March, and no first review comments were received in July. We urged the manuscript. They replied that one of the reviewers has not returned comments yet. The comments were returned in August. All the experts agreed that the innovation and content of the article are suitable for publication, but major revisions for language such as grammar are needed; it was returned in September and sent for review after January. The second-review opinions returned in mid-January 2020. The experts in the second review who participated in the first review were obviously positive, and they helped suggesting many small details for revisions, while the other two reviewers were obviously inconsistent with the research direction of the article, and raised a lot of laymen's subjective questions. At the end of January 2020, they were revised as suggested, and detailed production and other practical data were listed, neutrally rebutting to the laymen’s review opinions. On February 20, 2020, three weeks after the revision submitted, the managing editor directly rejected it for high-sounding reasons such as grammar, research area, and adequacy of argumentation. In fact, before submitting the manuscript, I found the language editing company suggested by Nature to proof the language. After the revisions, the editing company revised it again for free. In addition, I found two foreign friends to check the grammar. The journal can only be divided into Q3 for: 1). Articles are becoming less and less theoretically innovative; 2). The editor has too much power and the journal lacks objectivity and impartiality; 3). The manuscript processing is seriously delayed, which seriously damages the timeliness of the article. According to this trend, in the near future, it is estimated that it will be hard to be included in even Q4. You must be cautious to submit.

(16) Thank | 5hjl998

This journal publishes too few articles every year. The manuscripts were reviewed back and forth (Reviewers agreed to accept, but the editor-in-chief still reviewed it for several rounds). It took one and a half year for the acceptance after several times of reviewing. Now it is online, it is said that it could have to wait a year for publication.

(2) Thank | Katie

The reviewing time was six months. After acceptance, you will be able to work with the editor to revise and modify the format and images. The editing is very responsible. Even very small errors will be corrected. This is a well-recognized journal in the industry.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Good journal.

(0) Thank | 刘冬

The best petroleum geology journal ever, is now almost filled with water from the Chinese.

(4) Thank | 页岩气

very good journal, top journal in petroleum geology, reviewer and editor are very responsible, it is a bit slow review

(1) Thank | Anonymous

2014 Impact Factor: 2.606

(0) Thank | Anonymous

No feedback.Test

(5) Thank | 测一测

anonymous comment

(3) Thank | 哇哈哈

The American Petroleum Geology Society is definitely about geological aspects, but in recent years there have been a number of articles in the application category, and there are very few theoretical classes.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Journal Homepage URL: http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/

(0) Thank | Anonymous