SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT

The Science of The Total Environment has been in Q1, so I submitted an article to it. The speed was very fast, and it was accepted in a total of 2 months after the major revision. The specific process is as follows, for your reference: 06/17/2020 Submitted to Journal; 06/17/ 2020 With Editor; 06/17/2020 Under Review; 06/30/2020 Under Review; 07/09/2020 Under Review; 07/12/2020 Revise; 08/11/2020 Revision Submitted to Journal; 08/11/2020 With Editor; 08/11/2020 Under Review; 08/16/2020 Required Reviews Completed; 08/16/2020 Under Review; 08/19/2020 Under Review; 08/22/2020 Revise; 08/25/2020 Revision Submitted to Journal; 08/25/2020 With Editor; 08/25/2020 Accept.

(9) Thank | 沙海拾贝

Second rejection occurred. The manuscript was submitted yesterday and rejected today. The efficiency was also high, indeed. The journal’s response is included below: Publishing in STOTEN is becoming increasingly competitive as there is limited space in the journal. With this in view, we have to prioritize papers that we publish and some good quality articles sometimes cannot be accommodated. STOTEN is assigning low priority to studies of this nature (e.g., modelling of theoretical configurations, laboratory studies, environmental analytic chemistry). In a word, the journal is biased towards field test. Others may have a lower priority.

(6) Thank | 嘎嘎嘎鸭

1.4 With editor; 1.9 Under review; 1.22 Under editor evaluation; 1.31 Under editor evaluation; 2.5 Under editor evaluation; 2.10 Major Revision; 3.7 Revision submitted to journal; 3.7 With editor 3.9 Accepted. I did research in large scale. The review speed was very fast, the result of fist review returned within a month, major revision. There were four reviewers in total, two of whom had no big opinions, and the other two asked very professional questions. After calming down, I made serious revisions, and the article did be improved. Overall, I felt that Science of the Total Environment (STOTEN) was more serious in review, and it had high demand on the innovation of articles. The other one came to a miserable ending within a week, that journal had high language requirements, I specially asked my tutor and a foreign professor to help modify the language before returning. It may be that the revision was more careful and the responses were good (the responses were written up to 21 pages), the editor did not send it to the second review, and it was accepted directly. Thanks to Professor Henner Hollert and the reviewers. I hope STOTEN gets better and better.

(9) Thank | 你可以的

12.14 Submitted to journal; 12.17 With editor; 12.19 Under review. 01.11 Under editor evaluation. 01.12 Under review; 01.17 Under editor evaluation; 01.18 Major revision; 02.02 Revision submitted; 02.12 Required reviews completed; 02.12 Under review; 03.01 Required reviews completed; 03.01 Accepted. The submission went well. In the first review, the under editor evaluation should have received the number of review comments to decide, but the editorial board was relatively cautious and continued to wait for subsequent reviewers to return the comments after changing the conditions (a total of 4 reviewers). In the second review, required reviews completed in the same way. Editor A.D.

(7) Thank | THEMONSTER

8.4 submit; 9.4 major revision.  The three reviews are all positive. Although there were a total of 33 questions, they were not difficult to answer, but I waited for more than 20 days before receiving next round of reviews. 9.30 resubmit,10.23 minor revision. ‘Under review’ becomes ‘required reviews completed’ and then ‘under review’ again. The reviewers disagreed and sought a third review draft to arbitrate. Message on 11.7: needs minor revision, modify some simple grammar problems and other grammar questions that were pointed out. Resubmit 11.7 accepted 11.9. Published online but manuscript has not been typeset yet. The overall efficiency is very high and the speed is very fast.

(3) Thank | 扬哥哥

Its review article, the process was as the follow:
submitted 3/August/2020 
with editor 4/August/2020
major revision 3/September/2020 (due time was only 1 month)
submitted the revised form 2/October/2020
Accepted 3/October/2020
Available online 14/October/2020
The editor process is highly efficient, my editor was Huu Hao Ngo.

(0) Thank | siddiggasim@gmail.com

08.17: submitted to journal;08.17: with editor;08.22: under review;09.03: under review (with the new one, it should be that the review comments returned are not enough, invite reviewers again);09.24: under editor evaluation;09.25: revise (minor revision);09.26: submitted to journal;09.28; accepted.The first time I selectd total, I was very excited. I had to update it twice a day, and I worked hard to pay attention.I feel that this journal is very reliable, as long as the review comments come back, the speed is very fast.A total of 53 days before and after, if the reviewer can not invite twice, I believe that one and a half months is enough.The editor of my choice is the teacher Feng Xinbin of Guiyang Institute of Geochemistry, who is very responsible.

(3) Thank | 青蛙要飞

Will the downstairs, re-selection of the previous editor, and which editor did you choose?

(0) Thank | 季节不要变化

2018.01.24Complete the first draft;2018.04.08 first submission;2018.06.25 has a review opinion, one overhaul is rejected, and the editor gives it a rejection;Submitted again by 2018.10.23;2018.10.25 began reviewing the draft;2019.01.17 has review opinions, overhaul;Submit a revised version of 2019.02.10;2019.02.12 Receive.From the first draft to the reception lasted for more than a year, the total feeling is that the STOTEN requirements are relatively high, and 200% of the skill is used in the process of continuous modification. Fortunately, the final result is gratifying.Thanks again to the suggestions given by the experts, gave me a lot of thoughts and inspiration!The above is the personal heart journey for your reference!

(2) Thank | Sunshinexyy

As of February 14, 2019, STOTEN can retrieve the articles published in the first quarter of 19 years in the Web of Science.According to this data, the total number of articles will reach 7,800 this year, and the horrible number of articles... This is the old road to prepare for Sci Rep-UK

(2) Thank | 1-2-3木头人

The advantage lies in the efficient processing of editing, the disadvantages, more and more difficult,The editor refused directly and did not submit for review. This journal is still very good.

(2) Thank | Wuwei

29 Nov 2018 contributed27 Dec 2018 Overhaul, 8 reviewers21 Jan 2019 Submit revised draft7 Feb 2019 Article receptionThe review was very strict, and the first review went through 8 reviewers.The article is processed very quickly.

(13) Thank | mub

11.21 Submission12.19 Return to opinion overhaul01.13 Back01.31 Return to comments02.04 Back02.05 AcceptI feel that journals have high requirements for language and science~The reviewer's comments are very good, and the article has improved a lot!

(1) Thank | Tideychao

I 1228 submit
   0125 under editor evaluationAt present, under editor evaluation has been 11 days. Is this normal?Is the editor also putting on the Spring Festival holiday?Does the little friend have similar energy?

(0) Thank | 旖旎厘米

Now the reviewer is seriously slow, intentional unintentional ingredients are available, and the amount of control sent becomes the immediate need~~~If you do a good job, you will be able to break the 6th year after the break.

(2) Thank | Pul-AC

There is now a trend of uneasiness. In 2018, stoten sent more than 4,000 copies, twice as many as the previous two years.Now, in the 19th year of publication until March, 1600 articles have been issued, so it is estimated that there will be more than 6,000 articles this year. If the reason is because the article quality control is relaxed, then the journal impact factor may dive after one or two years.

(7) Thank | xzw1995

I want to inform everyone here that STOTEN has been replaced since November 2018, with editors and reviewers all replaced.The review speed is slow to die.At the same time, we have submitted 8 articles to STOTEN, which belong to different fields (plant ecology, climate model estimation, vegetation remote sensing inversion, soil CN cycle, land surface process simulation, hydrology and water resources, snow inversion, etc.).The friends told me that five of the eight articles had been used for one and a half months in the first trial, and then they were sent to the new reviewers after the revision, and they are still under review in the second round.The other 3 people are currently under review in a round.Therefore, do not think that the so-called praise of Jan Gan is good. After he came to China in August this year, after hearing the warnings from domestic acquaintances, he received a reprimand from the editorial board and has become quite strict with the review..All of us are selected by the eight people as editors.In addition, I heard that a teacher at Nankai University said that he also self-reviewed when he went to Nankai exchange this year.Personally feel that STOTEN is strictly strict, so that it is conducive to the quality of journals.

(41) Thank | 天才少女

8-14 submitted9-8 major revision10-3 revise submitted to journal11-5 major revision12-4 revise submitted to journal12-18 minor revision12-22 resubmit12-23 acceptedThe review is super fast, and the review and revision cycle is basically within one month.This journal is extremely efficient, and if the article is highly relevant, the reception will be very fast.

(2) Thank | zero0616

When it is not officially released, the reference data is not comprehensive.The new impact factor will exceed 5.4...The growth is gratifying

(0) Thank | Pul-AC

There is a big god can count the current real-time impact factor of the total ring

(6) Thank | 123chemis

2018.10.23 submit2018.11.13 major revise2018.12.1 resubmit2018.12.1 under review2018.12.16 acceptThe editor is Zhen He, which is very efficient.Thanks to the revision comments of the three reviewers, it is very helpful for the quality improvement of the article, recommend the total ring!I wish the journals better and better!

(6) Thank | 可乐Cola

The article has been accepted for some time, the research area is large, the research results are relatively new, the first trial is 30 days, minor repairs, the reviewer only mentioned a few opinions, probably because of the previous selectThe journal has been carefully revised once it has been rejected.Delayed repairs for 30 weeks and received directly within one weekOverall, it was a very pleasant submission experience. It has been cited several times in the past few months. I feel that you should not pay too much attention to the journals (the pressure on the impact factor should be small next year), and have done your own research.It is good to be able to contribute to the profession.Finally, I chose Professor Jay Gan, who received rave reviews.

(1) Thank | 土水土

I have always liked this journal9.15 Submission10.18 Notice overhaul11.16 Repair12.10 Receiving

(0) Thank | NSC

From submission to receipt for 63 daysOverhaul once in the middleModify the language againhigh efficiencyBut how do you feel that you have not controlled the number of articles this year?I hope not to become a water issueThe distribution of countries published by STOTEN in the past three years:Mainland China: 1710USA: 1331Spain: 864Germany: 490Italy : 490

(26) Thank | 两仪式的蕾丝

0902 submit0903 under review1009 major revision1101 resubmit1101 under review1109 accept two complete cycles, the external review experts are very responsible, the questions are very professional, and the quality of the revised articles has improved a lot.The editor is Professor Hou Deyi of Tsinghua University, who is very nice and efficient.

(2) Thank | 春春