The timelines for your information: 6.17, submission. Sent for review on the same day. During the period, the status changed to editor evaluation. 8.7, the review comments of the first review were received. There were 3 review experts, one accepted it directly, one gave some detailed suggestions, and another one rejected it from the starting point of the article and gave a lot of questions about the research background that can be answered in the introduction (should be against my tutor, embarrassing me on purpose); 8.17, the reply to (the comments of) first review was returned, and it was sent for review on the same day; 9.16, the comments of the second review were received, the third reviewer still had some skeptical questions about the source of the research background; 9.16, the reply to (the comments of) second review was returned, and it was sent for review on the same day; 9.24, the notice of acceptance was received. Overall, I feel that the journal is very efficient in sending the articles for review and processing, and the quality of this journal is also not low.

(3) Thank | xbh

Timelines for your reference. 2019.7.7 submission; 2019.9.23 reviewer comments returned, requiring major revision within 2 months; here is one thing to say is that both reviewers expressed interest in the article and did not have too complicated comments. 2019.10.29 first revision submitted; 2019.12.19 comments for the first revision received, the No. 1 reviewer basically did not have any comments, only mentioned a few problems of figure numbers, etc. At this time, a lot of new opinions (that was not included in the first opinion) were suddenly raised by the No. 2 reviewer. 2020.1.25 second revision returned; 2020.3.14 comments for the second revision received. At this time, the No. 1 reviewer "recommended publication", and the No. 2 reviewer made a mistake in the manuscript, so we communicated with the editor, and a week later on March 30, the editor separately sent comments from the No. 2 reviewer. He still put forward a lot of comments. At this moment, I was a little worried. After replying one by one, I returned to the third revision on 2020.4.23. 2020.5.29 notification of acceptance received by email. The overall review process is still very fast. My 10-month period is equivalent to four rounds of review, which is not easy.

(7) Thank | 万物归藏

The editorial office has a very high processing efficiency, and a few time points are listed here for your reference! Submitted on September 19, 2018; first review comments returned on November 5, 2018; revised manuscript submitted on December 24, 2018; second review comments returned on February 7, 2019; the second revised manuscript submitted on March 7, 2019; accepted on April 8, 2019; online on April 13, 2019. Due to our own reasons, we didn’t revise it properly in the first time, which caused a second review and delayed the time. Generally speaking, it was processed quickly. Thanks for the hard work of the editorial office and reviewers! Thanks for LetPub’s assistance in the submission! My first article was finally accepted.

(4) Thank | 梦之蓝

Overall, this journal is credible and quick to review. I had three reviewers for my paper; two recommended that the paper be accepted and one recommended that it be rejected… got accepted! Yay for majority rules.

(4) Thank | Anonymous

Have you submitted it for review?

(0) Thank | Not a little deep learning

Why were you rejected?

(0) Thank | Not a little deep learning

Why was the third review rejected?

(0) Thank | Not a little deep learning

It's been two days, isn't this journal quite fast?

(0) Thank | 秋重

Still in the process of editing, estimated to be completed by the end of the month.

(0) Thank | SCI一投就中

Did my brother win?

(0) Thank | 秋重

The submission sent on May 11th was with the editor the next day. The external reviewer's comments were received within 20 days.

(0) Thank | SCI一投就中

Excuse me, OP, on which day did you submit your article for review, May 10th? And did you receive revision suggestions on May 31st?

(0) Thank | superman123

Submission in December, review by one reviewer in January, major revisions requested in February;
Revised submission in March, reviewed by two reviewers, returned in April for major revisions;
Revised submission in April, reviewed by three reviewers, rejected in June.

(0) Thank | 圆卷卷19

I feel quite lucky this time. The reviewing expert was lenient, always with a grateful heart.

(0) Thank | SCI一投就中

Good luck to the original poster. May I ask what direction the original poster is in? What are the main aspects of understanding the direction that journals are easily submitted for review (I feel it may change over time)?

(1) Thank | WQC

Received feedback on the 31st that is very professional and basically said that it can be submitted to the top experts in this industry (direction).

(0) Thank | SCI一投就中

I submitted my work on May 10th, and now it is under review. Keeping my fingers crossed, hoping it will bring me good luck. It is an honor for me to have my work reviewed, praying for blessings.

(0) Thank | SCI一投就中

My time with you is very close, submitted on December 26th, 24 years old, returned for revision on March 11th, major revision, submitted again on April 5th, and accepted on May 14th.

(0) Thank | 漫步云海涧

2024.12.26 Submitted
2024.12.26 2→0
2024.12.31 2→1
2025.01.07 3→1
2025.01.11 3→1/1
2025.01.16 4→1/1
2025.01.20 4→1/2
2025.02.26 4→2/2
2025.03.03 Major revised
2025.04.07 Revised resubmitted
2025.05.14 Accept
Overall, the editorial process was very fast, with reviewers invited on the same day as submission. However, the topic may be niche, making it difficult to find reviewers. Ultimately, the paper was accepted after five months.

(0) Thank | 房山季鸟猴

Apr 12, 2025, Under Review (2 review invitations sent, 2 review invitations accepted, 0->1 review completed)
Apr 22, 2025, Required Reviews Completed (2 review invitations sent, 2 review invitations accepted, 2 reviews completed)
Apr 22, 2025, Revise (Editor has given MAJOR REVISIONS and requested resubmission by May 6, one reviewer has agreed to accept, another reviewer has provided 3 comments)
Apr 28, 2025, With Editor
Apr 29, 2025, Under Review (1 review invitation sent, 0 review invitations accepted, 0 reviews completed)
Apr 30, 2025, Review Complete (1 review invitation sent, 1 review invitation accepted, 0->1 review completed)
Apr 30, 2025, Completed - Accept

(0) Thank | Geotechnics5454

Feb 16, 2025, Under Review (3 review invitations sent, 2 accepted, 0->1 completed)
Feb 19, 2025, Required Reviews Completed (3 review invitations sent, 2 accepted, 1->2 completed)
Feb 19, 2025, Revise (Editor requested MAJOR REVISIONS and return revised manuscript by April 20, with a total of 21 comments from two reviewers)
Mar 28, 2025, With Editor, delayed by some miscellaneous matters, otherwise could have been revised faster
Mar 29, 2025, Under Review (0->2 review invitations sent, 0 accepted, 0 completed)
Mar 30, 2025, Under Review (2 review invitations sent, 0->1 accepted, 0 completed)
Apr 3, 2025, Under Review (2 review invitations sent, 1->2 accepted, 0 completed), bug on the "Elsevier Publishing Service" WeChat account from March 30 to April 10 did not send notifications.

(0) Thank | Geotechnics5454

CG is the top journal in our field, it's really good and fast! Thanks to Editor-in-Chief John S McCartney and the two peer reviewers for raising professional questions that greatly improved the quality of the manuscript. The specific submission process is as follows:
Jan 09, 2025, Submitted to Journal
Jan 10, 2025, With Editor
Jan 10, 2025, Under Review (Review invitations sent: 2, Review invitations accepted: 0, Reviews completed: 0)
Jan 15, 2025, Under Review (Review invitations sent: 2->3, Review invitations accepted: 0, Reviews completed: 0)
Jan 20, 2025, Under Review (Review invitations sent: 3, Review invitations accepted: 0->1, Reviews completed: 0)
Jan 25, 2025, Under Review (Review invitations sent: 3, Review invitations accepted: 1->2, Reviews completed: 0)

(0) Thank | Geotechnics5454

20241120 Submitted / With editor
20241121 Under review
20241231 Required Reviews Completed
20250102 Revise
20250227 Revisions being processed
20250421 Decision in process / Accept

The editor responded promptly, feedback could be received almost on the same day; because the topic is relatively niche, the opinions of the two reviewers (presumably compatriots) were not very relevant, but still difficult to change; the revision period coincided with the Spring Festival, so it took two months to submit the revisions; after the revisions, it seems to have caught up with the busy season for our researchers, so we are truly grateful to the reviewers for taking the time to re-review our manuscript. In recent years, the quality of CG's output has been good, and we hope that everyone's submissions will be fruitful ^_^*

(0) Thank | hanfeiwork

Everyone for me, I for everyone.

(0) Thank | 李——

The second one has been under review for a month now, I don't know what the result will be, so I can only wait.

(0) Thank | ZYS