Secondary journal in hydrogeology; innovation requirements are not as high as JH, WRR, HP. More emphasis on the practical application of the method. Two reviewers, minor revision, gave a high evaluation of the paper's Introduction and Discussion! Returned the revised draft in 1 month and was accepted soon after.

(5) Thank | Anonymous

Exactly two months, sent on November 4th and returned for repair on January 4th.

(1) Thank | 人生何处不青山丶

How long did your first review take? I had my first review in August last year, and I am still in under review. I feel a bit nervous seeing that the reviewer's comments are so complex.

(0) Thank | 暴暴

Just received major revisions, with three reviewers providing a total of 48 suggestions that essentially require a rewrite of the article. The demands for innovation, readability, and language are extremely strict, with some issues being very tricky. As a journal from the third tier, the workload and difficulty of these revisions are really overwhelming. Personally, I feel that being so strict for a third-tier journal is unnecessary, as the difficulty of the revisions is comparable to first-tier journals.

(0) Thank | 人生何处不青山丶

It's a bit slow. For the first paper, I thought there were only a few non-open source in the three zones of geological engineering, so I tried to submit this one. I didn't expect the speed to be really slow, it's frustrating. According to the time, it seems that there are currently two reviewers who have reviewed the manuscript, each spending one month:
10.08 New Submission
10.13 Under review
11.12 Under review
11.22 Under review
11.24 Under review
11.26 Under review
11.27 Under review
11.29 Under review
12.02 Under review
01.03 Under review
01.05 Under review
I hope to meet kind reviewers and have a good year.

(0) Thank | 暴暴

First is the overall impression: the trouble of subsequent revisions of the journal in the third zone of the Chinese Academy of Sciences is comparable to that of the journal in the first zone of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. I submitted it once, and I will not submit it again in the future.

In addition, what is most speechless is that after everything else has been revised, the following line:

In my last email, I explained that the map must show only on-land borders, so the dashed border line in the South China Sea must be deleted.

It means to delete the boundary line of the nine-dash line in the South China Sea. (Disgusting!) Other foreign journals will not ask you to delete it.

It really is a garbage journal!

(7) Thank | wefdfsdf

I mainly work on pollution tracing and identification. My evaluation of HJ is that it is an underestimated journal in the field of water resources. The opinions given by the journal reviewers are very professional (and also challenging). I have had an article published in JH before, and I feel that the opinions in HJ are even more professional in comparison. However, recently, the impact factor of HJ has been increasing every year, and it has been upgraded to the second tier in the water resources field by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. In the long run, a gem will always shine, so it might be worth considering submitting an article to HJ in advance.

(131) Thank | stratapan

2014.12,.5Submission, February 24 first trial.Recruited on 2015.5.23, published online on July 5.There are certain requirements for the article innovation

(13) Thank | Anonymous

Hydrogeology professional journal, the quality is good.All kinds of hydrogeological surveys are conducted by various means.Otherwise it is difficult!

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Who selectd this journal, how is the speed of reviewing it? I will post an article to this journal next week.Hope to have a good result

(0) Thank | Anonymous