5.8, with editor; 5.12, under review; 6.7, under editor evaluation; 6.9, major revision (There were two reviewers, both of them affirmed the innovation of this article. The comments of one reviewer were very professional. I was required to supplement the data. It took one month for the major revision); 7.9, resubmitted; 7.10, under review; 7.13, under review; 8.6, major revision (The first review agreed the publication; the second reviewer raised very important comments, which helped in improving the article greatly. It took half a month for the revision); 8.20 revision submitted to journal; 8.20, with editor; 8.20, under review; 9.13, minor revision (the second reviewer agreed the publication, one another reviewer was added, who raised some comments); 9.15, resubmitted; 9.15, with editor; 9.18, accepted. Generally speaking, the editing process was very fast, the reviewers were professional, the comments hit the nail on the head, which helped in improving the article greatly. There were many negative voices of this journal. However, I think it is ok. It is the icing on the cake for those who are finding jobs. Thanks to the editor-in-chief.

(3) Thank | dalabenba

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

The manuscript was submitted on April 15, and it was sent for review on April 17. During the period, the date changed twice. Major revision was required on May 4. There were two reviewers. The first reviewer raised 20 questions, and several questions were relatively detailed, which were easy to revise. The second reviewer raised 5 comments, which were complicated and difficult to answer. Overall, the quality of the article was greatly improved after revision. The comments of the reviewers were very professional. There were a lot of experimental data. When writing the article, some parts were not written in. Both reviewers mentioned that some explanations were lacking, so I added those data to supplementary materials. The second reviewer raised a question and required me to supplement experiments. During the pandemic, there was really no way, so I cited the reference and explained to him. The revised manuscript was required to be submitted on June 3 by (the editor of) this journal. I submitted the revised manuscript to this journal on June 2, which was in a hurry. I happened to be sick and had an operation during the period. In the end, it was finished after several nights of hard work. It was sent for review again on June 4, and it was accepted on June 10. It is now June 20; the manuscript has been finished and it has just been submitted. The editor chosen was Jay. The first article was also submitted to this journal during my master. It was rejected immediately after submission. And then, the second submitted article was also rejected immediately. So, I have psychological shadow for this. Unexpectedly, it was the first article accepted by this journal in my Ph.D. It was my first time to submit article to this journal, it was so fast, and it was a surprise. What I wrote was about the treatment of pharmaceutical wastewater using MBBR and STR processes. Maybe it met the taste of the editor, and there were many experiment data. In addition, there must be error bars in the data graph, but I neglected this time. As a result, all the diagrams were redone again, which was annoying. In the end, I wish you all have more articles to be published, and every article submitted can be accepted.

(13) Thank | 黛芙妮的异想世界

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

In the latest issue of the journal, there is not a single paper by a Chinese scholar.

(0) Thank | 寒江独钓

Clock in.

(0) Thank | duaaaaa

Oh, nice to meet you for the first time. Let's take a photo to commemorate this moment. Hehe.

(0) Thank | 科研小菜鸡儿

If removed from SCIE, all articles during the on-hold period will not be included in SCIE. If the on-hold status is lifted, there is a possibility for future inclusion. Submitting now is a gamble.

(0) Thank | Protagonist

Can we still invest in the overall environment now, everyone?

(0) Thank | 文章必接受

If I don't understand, if the paper I am currently submitting is not indexed by SCI even if it is accepted. If so, is there still a need to submit it?

(0) Thank | 婉娥

Removed the editor-in-chief's paper, and also dismissed the editor involved in the incident. I believe things will get better.

(0) Thank | 艾森伯格

You have to work hard and live up to your potential!

(0) Thank | 大神

Has Damià Barceló been removed?

(0) Thank | 一中一

The editor-in-chief has been kicked out.

(0) Thank | Hjftb

Fate has been sealed, with a large number of manuscripts being withdrawn, and an unresolved issue editor. Isn't this the old road of Chemosphere? So the question is, a well-established environmental journal under its banner has already been kicked out, will Elsevier really not profit from another one?

(0) Thank | nongdawuyanzu

Brother, after being rejected by Chemosphere, do you still have the courage to submit to the On hold journal? Your gambling spirit is strong.

(0) Thank | interlegend

Why is nobody commenting?

(0) Thank | 火鸡味锅巴

It's hard to say, it depends on the extent of the actual violation. Some of the articles in the overall environment are too superficial, which is a pity for a group of researchers who have worked hard.

(1) Thank | 中国抽象院院士

The risk is quite high.

(0) Thank | wfmpaper

The JCAR index has been updated, with STOTEN only at 0.3% in 2024, and the lifting of restrictions is imminent.

(0) Thank | Hjftb

The fate of the Chemosphere is expected to be quite significant.

(0) Thank | 秋葉

Excuse me, is there any withdrawal of the submission? How can I withdraw the submission?

(0) Thank | 虫虫198101