On 2020.6.30: submit to journal. After about a week, it was under review. On 2020.9.12: major revisions. A month was given to revise. (Three reviewers with a total of 20 comments, and one of them rejected the article.) I got married midway. On 2020.10.12: submit revision to journal. On 2020.11.5: moderate revisions (It's a sort of minor revision. A reviewer gave 3 suggestions, and the other three reviewers directly accepted it). PS: I didn’t know why there were more reviewers than I thought. The most dramatic one was that the reviewer against the opinion of another reviewer during the first review. On 2020.11.6: submit revision to journal. Under review was continued. On 2020.12.2: Accept. It took a total of 5 months and 3 days, which was a bit slower than the junior fellow (413th post), haha. The editor was also Daniel CW Tsang. After two revisions, the quality of the article increased significantly. Thanks again to the anonymous reviewers and editor-in-chief, Dr. Daniel Cw Tsang!

(7) Thank | 唐糖糖9627

8.5, submitted to journal (nuclear material irradiation); 8.6, with editor; 8.8, under review; 9.5, major revisions (3 reviewers, two major revisions and one minor revision); 9.16, submitted revision to journal; 9.21, required reviewers completed (I thought the result would be returned); 9.22, under review; 10.8, required reviewers completed; 10.8, minor revisions; 10.9, submitted revision to journal; 10.9, sent back to author (the manuscript without track changes was required to upload after revision); 10.9, submitted revision to journal (the revised manuscript without track changes was uploaded; another one with track changes was also uploaded); 10.10, with editor; 10.10, accept. It took 66 days in total, thanks to editor Daniel CW Tsang, who has very high efficiency, who is also a young academic expert. Share it for your reference, I wish you all have smooth submission.

(23) Thank | Winston

Jun 13 2020 Submitted; Jun 14 2020 Under Review; Jul 10 2020 Under Review; Jul 20 2020 Under Review; Jul 21 2020 Under Review; Jul 22 2020 Required Reviews Completed; Jul 22 2020 Major Revision (5 reviewers, 30 comments) Aug 1 2020 Revision Submitted to Journal; Aug 3 2020 With Editor; Aug 4 2020 Under Review; Aug 11 2020 Under Review; Aug 26 2020 Accept. Two and a half months later, it was finally accepted. The speed is still quite fast. During the period, the time of Under Review changed several times. I personally felt that it changed every time when a reviewer's opinion returned, so you don't have to worry about this situation. Maybe something good is coming, and I hope everyone can get an acceptance.

(27) Thank | Disguiser

Research direction: Microbial salt tolerance mechanism, editor: Gerasimos Lyberatos, PhD. The manuscript processing efficiency is very fast. Number of reviewers: 2. The submission status is as follows: Dec 18, 2019, submitted to journal; Dec 19, 2019, with editor; Dec 19, 2019, under review; Jan 15, 2020, under editor evaluation; Jan 16, 2020, major revision; Jan 30, 2020, revision submitted to journal; Jan 31, 2020, with editor; Feb 1, 2020, under review; Feb 15, 2020, major revision; Feb 15, 2020, Accept. In fact, this JHM has been promoted to a comprehensive journal in recent years, and the content received is relatively wide. There are relatively few professional reviewers in the slightly related field, so the problem raised is not difficult. The requirement was mainly for the format. A Graphical Abstract is mandatory, so you must draw it before submitting the manuscript. The second major revision was to modify the picture, and then we returned it in the afternoon and it was accepted in the evening. Overall, it is relatively fast.

(7) Thank | 瞄准小灰灰

Jul 15, 2019 Submitted to Journal. Jul 15, 2019 With editor. Jul 15, 2019 Under review. Jul 16, 2019 Under review. Jul 17, 2019 Under review. Jul 27, 2019 Under editor evaluation. Jul 27, 2019 Under review. Aug 05, 2019 Major Revision. Aug 21, 2019 Revision Submitted to Journal. Aug 21, 2019 With editor. Aug 21, 2019 Under review. Aug 28, 2019 Under review. Sep 01, 2019 Minor Revision. Sep 02, 2019 Revision Submitted to Journal. Sep 02, 2019 With editor. Sep 03, 2019 Accept. The one-month review stage was abolished. Six reviewers in total. Thank Daniel CW Tsang.

(5) Thank | 九品鬼差

When searching the news today, I was shocked by the news that “The world lost Professor Joo-Hwa Tay, and the paradise add one more water expert." He was the editor of the Journal of Hazardous Materials. JHM is a great journal in the environmental field. I became familiar with Joo-Hwa Tay because of my two articles. In 2014, the first JHM article I published during my master’s degree was handled by Professor Joo-Hwa Tay. It was finally accepted after revision, so I thought JHM and Professor Tay were great and I had a good start in scientific research. During my Ph.D. in 2019, I submitted another article, which was still handled by Professor Joo-Hwa Tay. The process from with editor to under review was very fast, indicating that the professor handled the article very quickly (JHM is mainly slow in the preliminary review). I received review comments which requested minor revisions on June 9th, and returned the revised submission on June 12th. I thought it would be accepted the next day because it would not be sent for review after minor revisions. However, until June 22, the time with editor changed once. At that time, I guessed whether the professor was sick, or else it would be handled soon. The next day, June 23, my article was accepted and it was already processed by another editor (Danmong Shuai). Generally speaking, the editor would not be changed in processing revised manuscript. Today I felt so sad to see the news of the professor's death. I felt it was out of sudden and the affairs of the world are inconstant.

(44) Thank | 天问

My article was finally accepted by JHM. In fact, this article had been rejected by ACB, EST, WR, JC, and CEJ. Timeline: I submitted in July, and in August the editors wrote that the article did not pass the second round of technical review because the duplication rate was too high with an overall (including references) duplication score of 36%, and the single source, 2%. I reduced it to 25%, and when the the references were excluded, it the duplication score was only 12%. I resubmitted it, and in September the reviews asked for revision. I revised it and then it was sent to different reviewers. I was asked for minor revisions. The article was accepted in December.

(7) Thank | yudeyou

Hello, have you submitted it? Is there a word limit? My word count is also on the higher side.

(0) Thank | 云中云

The impact factor has been released, with an IF of 11.3, like sliding down a slide, hoping it can increase a bit next year.

(0) Thank | 狂奔的皮皮虾

What is the typical time duration an editor allows for reviewers to complete a review?

(0) Thank | RijD

Similarly, the review process is longer, and if just one reviewer disagrees, the submission will be rejected.

(0) Thank | wang000001

You should be the one who gave the most opinions but ended up rejecting the submission, you just didn't explicitly state it.

(0) Thank | 云中云

Does it need a reminder that only one person is reviewing the manuscript?

(0) Thank | 过儿虫儿

I feel the same way, it's too disgusting.

(0) Thank | PPPPIGGGG

Okay, thank you, my good brother.

(0) Thank | Jiaxuan Chen

What direction are we heading, brother?

(0) Thank | Jiaxuan Chen

Garbage, the editor's decisions are very arbitrary. At first, they didn't reject the submission. After receiving feedback from four experts, three gave high ratings, one provided a lot of comments, but did not directly say to reject it. The editor just rejected it directly... Too arbitrary... Garbage, wasting other people's time.

(0) Thank | linee37

Why JHM sending articles to huge number of reviewers? Quite frustrating for authors

(0) Thank | RijD

Why JHM sending articles to huge number of reviewers? Quite frustrating for authors.

(0) Thank | RijD

By the way, the update time of tracking links is accurate, while that of public accounts is not.

(0) Thank | 生旦净末

Look at the editing settings, some have 2 RRCs, some do not. By tracking it, you will know whether it is inviting new reviewers or if there are new review comments submitted. Press F12 in the tracking link, and you will be able to see the detailed events of the UUID.

(0) Thank | 生旦净末

Thank you, my good brother. Can we invite new reviewers in a continuous RRC state? Or will it become UR after inviting them?

(0) Thank | Jiaxuan Chen

Tracking links can show specific reviewers and their comments. Generally, the update in time could be due to changes in opinions, or the invitation of new reviewers.

(0) Thank | 生旦净末

Could you please let me know if this journal has any specific requirements regarding word count? I did not see any mention of it in the author guidelines.

(0) Thank | 小吴木木木

6.3RRC, up to now, the update time has been continuously updated for 4 days, what does this mean, does it mean that 4 review comments have been completed again?

(0) Thank | Jiaxuan Chen