Recently, the impact factor has increased, and the number of submissions has surged. I firstly submitted the manuscript at the end of April and the comments requiring a revision came back in mid-June. There were two reviewers, one reviewer gave some more comprehensive and pertinent opinions, mainly on error analysis and parameter sensitivity analysis, and a major revision was required; the second reviewer was very unfriendly and directly pointed that the article was feasible theoretically , but the language is too poor, and it was recommended to modify the language; after the revision was completed and resubmitted in August, the first reviewer was satisfied and did not ask any more questions. However, the second reviewer symbolically raised a few language issues and requested a major revision; the revision was submitted for the third time in October, and the second reviewer found a few questions where he had read in the article and requested another major revision; the revision was resubmitted in early November, and it has been under review for 15 days till now. I am waiting anxiously. In November, I will finish the postdoctoral work and attend the school meeting. The article being delayed makes me really depressed.

(2) Thank | yajun_rhul

The article is about regional landslide warning. A major revision was required in the first review. The editor asked questions about Practical significance of the results and International relevance. There were two other reviewers, one asked a lot of key questions, and the other quite recognized the article. Then it was revised and submitted in about a month. The reviewers were quite satisfied, but the editor rejected the manuscript. The reason was still on the problem of Practical significance of the results and International relevance, thinking that the discussion part should increase International relevance. In fact, I didn't understand how to increase International relevance, also didn't figure out how to revise it to improve "Practical significance of the results". The editor also asked me to provide the resolution and scale of the original data, which actually cannot be provided. It is recommended to take every small issue from the editor seriously, otherwise even if the reviewer is satisfied, the manuscript may still be rejected.

(5) Thank | 你好123

2018-10-12 Submitted / With editor; 2018-11-22 Reviewer invited after we urged; 2018-11-23 Under Review; 2018-12-22 Ready for decision; 2019-01-21 Modest revision; 2019-01-26 Resubmitted; 2019-01-31 Reviewer invited; 2019- 03-01 Results after being urged: the original reviewer refused to review and new reviewer was invited; 2019-05-20 Reviewer invited, and I sent a reminder letter again (saying that if there was no news, I will not able to graduate). 2019-05-22 Accepted and received for production. (Apologies from the editor: Apologies-this paper did end up in a strange place in the editorial system and it was difficult to find! You may understand it by yourself.)

(0) Thank | Wolf_

Close match to scope is crucial. Moderate language requirements.

(1) Thank | Anonymous

I am also: Removed by editor! 
It is also a matter of institutional email and English expression. Have there been any follow-ups after your re-submission? Has it entered the external review stage?

(0) Thank | pandadod

5.13 with editor
5.19 your
Three reviewers, all accepted the next day, it has been 25 days and none of them have responded yet, I'm worried, please don't run away, please.

(0) Thank | 小一个啵啵

6.13 under review.

(0) Thank | 纨绔蜗牛

The tenth SCI paper to commemorate
2024.12.04 Submission
2024.12.09 Sent back
2024.12.10 Resubmission
2024.12.12 With editor
2024.12.23 Under Review (Status changed on 2025.01.02)
2025.02.11 RRC and DIP
2025.03.06 Major revision

2025.04.25 Submission revision
2025.04.27 With editor
2025.05.13 Under Review
2025.05.30 DIP
2025.05.31 Accept

2025.06.06 Pre-online and proofing
2025.06.11 Publish
I hope my submission experience can provide assistance to everyone. The journal has high quality and fast efficiency, and the experience is quite good.

(1) Thank | Airpush

6.8 submission
6.9 with editor

(0) Thank | 纨绔蜗牛

Two reviewers

(0) Thank | kk5678

How many reviewers are you, OP? Would three be enough?

(0) Thank | QingxuZhao

5.29 Submission
6.1 WE
6.6 Under Review (Currently 11 review experts have been invited, with 3 accepting the review)

(0) Thank | QingxuZhao

5.23 14-2-1, finally have enough.

(0) Thank | 布布大王

I am in the same situation as well, exactly the same. One reviewer completed the review in half a month, while another has been invited for 4 months with no response. Can I send a reminder? Any advice?

(0) Thank | 546431687151

It is normal for a month.

(0) Thank | kkc226

It has been a week with the editor, and it has not been submitted for review yet. How many days do you usually take to submit for review?

(0) Thank | 畅行天下

5.14 13-1-1 I really don't seem to be popular, thank you once again to the editor, keep going...

(0) Thank | 布布大王

After the last time, the editor invited me four more times, which touched me deeply. However, I still haven't reached the required number of two 8-1-0. Please, can I have one more acceptance?

(0) Thank | 布布大王

Can this editor handle withdrawal requests?

(0) Thank | 威扬

I have been submitting for a month, but my status hasn't changed and the editor hasn't responded.

(0) Thank | hhhhttttt

Brother, what's your current situation? I am facing this kind of problem now.

(0) Thank | Caoweifeng

Me too, you remind me.

(0) Thank | hhhhttttt

Western Easter holiday, normal.

(0) Thank | kkc226

Submitted to journal since April 15th, it has been over a week and I don't know the current status.

(0) Thank | chenchentx

The editor is Professor Paolo Frattini, PhD.

(0) Thank | kk5678