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

I was actually within the original text and did not upload it separately.

(0) Thank | Q SSD

Hello, may I inquire if photos should be added in the original text when submitting contributions, in addition to uploading them separately?

(0) Thank | 从入门到放弃

Submission in December 2024;
Major revisions in March 2025;
Revised version returned in May 2025;
Accepted in June 2025.
The questions raised by the experts are very insightful.

(0) Thank | Q SSD

The first review took nearly two months, with only one reviewer's opinion. In the second review, a second reviewer was added. Reviewer 1 agreed to accept, while Reviewer 2 requested rejection and raised a bunch of questions. The editor gave a chance for revision. In the third review, Reviewer 1 still agreed to accept, Reviewer 2 was not satisfied with the modifications and raised new questions. The editor then brought in a third reviewer. Reviewer 3 also suggested rejection, with opinions that seemed amateurish. However, the editor stated in the rejection letter that Reviewer 3 was more authoritative, so the paper was rejected. Being rejected was not a big issue, the main problem was the prolonged delay.

(0) Thank | 圆卷卷19

Trash journals, submitting to you is like sending a kindness card.

(0) Thank | 求本斋

Accepted, both joyful and happy. Wishing CG will be better and better, the editor-in-chief is great, and the handling is very fast, never dragging on, and it is a top-notch journal in geotechnical engineering, excellent.

(0) Thank | SCI一投就中

From the first submission to publication, it took a total of 3 months. The editorial process was very fast, with the initial submission and revisions both sent for review the next day. The reviewers were also very professional, asking sharp questions that showed a good understanding of my research. The journal has a significant impact, and with confidence in my own research, it is definitely worth submitting to.

(0) Thank | zhangy0122

2025.03.29 Submitted to Journal
2025.03.31 With Editor
2025.04.07 Under Review
2025.05.25 Major Revision
2025.06.07 Under Review
2025.06.27 Accept

It was a great submission experience, the reviewers provided very professional feedback. I wish Computers and Geotechnics continued success.

(1) Thank | ZWY-

On the evening of the 19th, the revised article was sent back to the journal. When I checked on the morning of the 20th, the editor had already sent it to the expert. Wow, they are really efficient. Thank you, thank you. I wish CG will continue to improve and increase its impact factor.

(0) Thank | SCI一投就中

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