The first submission. It can be concluded that the efficiency of ACS is really high. 2020.5.23 submitted. 2020.5.23 received. 2020.6.17 revision comments received. There were four reviewers: two of them agreed to accept, one of them requested a minor revision, last one requested a major revision. 2020.6.22 Submit the revised manuscript. 2020.6.22 revised. 2020.6.24 published. I wish everyone a smooth publication, and I hope I continue to have such good luck in the future.

(0) Thank | Yuan Huaikui

2020.4.15 Submission; 2020.5.18 Major revision; 2020.6.17 Revised submission; 2020.7.6 Acceptance. Efficiency was really high. At that time, it was revised and sent to the company for polishing. I was afraid that it was too late, so I specifically applied for an extension of three days. Editor Wu was really good, thank you. After all, it is an old journal, I hope that it can be maintained in Q2 in recent years, and I hope that the school evaluation fee will also be calculated according to the basic version. Finally, I wish you all the papers will be published in journals with high impact factors, and come on together!!

(1) Thank | xh866

2019.7.24 submission; 2019.8.20 received comments, two reviewers included. The first reviewer agreed publish after major revisions and gave 7 questions, 2 of which required careful thought and answering, and the rest of the questions are relatively simple. The second reviewer agreed publish after minor revisions and gave 8 questions. What is very interesting is that they basically tell you what is inappropriate and how to correct them. They also pointed out all the language errors seriously. Editor's opinion: it can be accepted after modification. It is also recommended to submit a cover within 30 days. 2019.9.17 Submit the revised version. 2019.9.24 comments received, and the first reviewer suggested that a result in the response letter should be added in the supporting materials. 2019.9.25 Submitted again. 2019.9.27 accepted. The overall speed is quite fast.

(3) Thank | 朝阳群众

Careful revisions must be made for acceptance.

(2) Thank | Anonymous

The article I wrote, "Correlation between Natural Seepage and Ionic Diffusion in Shales," is my sixth publication in SCI, and it is also the first time I have submitted to a higher-quality journal in Zone 3. The structure of my paper involves conducting data correlation analysis through three different categories of small experiments. Finally, after studying some thin section photos of core samples, I drew a cartoon-style conception of the internal structure of shale, discussed the source of external fluid ions, and wrote a simple mechanistic analysis. My three experiments used the data from the first two experiments for correlation analysis, and the last experiment demonstrated my mechanistic hypothesis. In fact, my first two experiments are very common, and previous researchers have also done data correlation analysis. I simply supplemented the third experiment for verification, refined the process of correlation analysis, and thus arrived at the mechanism of external fluid ion sources, which I illustrated with a cartoon. I share this method of finding highlights in mechanisms through extension experiments with everyone. For more details, you can refer to my paper. 

Regarding the review process, there were a total of five reviewer comments, two from foreigners and three from Chinese reviewers. The foreigners requested a more detailed explanation of the cartoon illustration, while the Chinese reviewers asked for simplification of the background explanation and specific analysis of the fluctuations in several steps and data columns in the experimental data graphs.

(0) Thank | 油条

The distribution editor will send an email.

(0) Thank | tyytytyt

I submitted on the afternoon of April 9th, and the next day it turned into "Under Review" and there has been no movement since. But I chose OA, and at the time I didn't understand what OA meant (first time submitting to SCI in the first year of graduate school), I don't know if I can change it later...

(0) Thank | A.Yyyy

I also submitted on April 8th, and it is still under consideration. Submission received.

(0) Thank | bkdbkd

Excuse me, how is it going now? How long until it is submitted for review?

(0) Thank | bkdbkd

Hello, it has been four days since I submitted my work, and it still shows "submission received". What is the situation? Has an editor taken over my submission?

(0) Thank | bkdbkd

3.19 Two reviewers minor revisions
3.27 Resubmission
4.1 Acceptance

(0) Thank | tyytytyt

4.1 Receiving

(0) Thank | tyytytyt

Yes, it is true. The feedback was received on 3.19, but previously it was showing as "Submission Received" in the ACS Publishing Center.

(0) Thank | tyytytyt

3.18 submit
3.19 Incorrect numbering of icons, returned for revision --- resubmit

(0) Thank | Dannie爱喝绿豆泥

Please send an email inquiry, as it appears that the submission will still show as "Submission Received" rather than "in peer review" as before.

(0) Thank | tyytytyt

I give up, 3.17 is still in the hands of the editor.

(0) Thank | tyytytyt

Where can I see the status of this journal? It has been "Under Consideration" since submission.

(0) Thank | KKKab

3.7 Manuscript Accepted and formatted three times during the process. Now waiting for proof. Thank you to Praveen Linga for editing, although the initial submission was slow, the speed afterwards was really fast. This paper was rejected a few times before, so being accepted is really lucky.

(0) Thank | kk5678

I will be around for about 4 days this time.

(0) Thank | tyytytyt

When will the editing be assigned? I have submitted mine three days ago and it has not been edited yet.

(0) Thank | lululululu33

2.15 submission
3.7 still in the hands of the editor
This year is going so slowly, it's been 4 days since it was submitted for review.

(0) Thank | tyytytyt

Hello everyone, I would like to ask for advice. I submitted my manuscript on January 18th, and the editorial office asked me to revise a figure number before resubmission. After resubmission, it was assigned to Professor Minghou Xu, but the status has remained "received" until today, March 2nd. It seems that it has not been sent for review yet. Should I send an email to follow up, as it has been almost forty days? If I do, should I email the associate editor directly, or would it be more appropriate to email the responsible editor or the editorial office?

(1) Thank | ljjj

2.28 temporarily accepted, there are three non-scientific opinions that need to be revised.

(0) Thank | kk5678

2.26复习材料收到

(0) Thank | kk5678

May I ask what is the current status? Has it been submitted for review?

(0) Thank | 小吉祥