4 Mar 2020, submitted; 12 Mar 2020–16 Mar 2020, under review; 7 Apr 2020–16 Apr 2020, under review; 17 Apr 2020–27 Apr 2020, with editor (received the least comments in the email); 6 May 2020, major revision (three reviewers); 3 June 2020, revision submitted to journal; (more than 40 pages of main text, more than 20 pages of supplementary materials, more than 40 pages of responses); 4 June 2020, editor invited; 8 June 2020, editor assigned; 17 June 2020–18 Apr 2020, with editor; 19 June 2020, accepted. It was my first SCI article. The waiting process is painful. The article must be innovative. The long-term data of years were used, and it took a year for revision, and more than 50 editions have been revised and discussed with the tutor. Thank you very much to the tutor and the expert I consulted, for your guidance! I am also very grateful to the reviewers for their hard work during the pandemic.

(8) Thank | hecan086

It is the world's number one journal in water resources field! After the first submission, the major revisions were required and it was directly accepted after minor revisions. I couldn’t be happier! 2019.12.28 submission; 2019.12.31 assigned article number; 2020.01.08 UR; 2020.01.17 UR updated (with review comments returned); 2020.02.04 Notify the minimum number of review comments has been completed; 2020.02.08 with editor; 2020.02.13 major revisions, a month was given for revision; 2020.03.12 a month of hard revision, submission; 2020.03.16 UR; 2020.03.29 with editor; 2020.03.31 minor revision; 2020.04.01 directly accepted after revised submission. 28 issues were raised when recommending major revision. 60 pages of revision notes, more than 20,000 words, even more than the manuscript. One month was given for revision. I worked more than 10 hours a day till the last day, and read more than 100 top journal articles. When the major revision was submitted, it just happened to meet the outbreak of a foreign epidemic, and I was afraid that the editor would be changed. Seeing the minor revision comments, I was happy, but I still reminded myself to stay steady. Three minor revision comments. I explained a comment in detail that the reviewer might not understand, and I didn't change it (argue in a friendly tone). And 2 other comments were carefully addressed.

(14) Thank | 93秦先生

2019.7.28, submitted to the journal; 2019. 9.2, major revision (two reviewers); 2019.10.15, submitted to the journal; 2019.10.18, under review; 2019.11.11, accept. It took 1 to 2 months for most of the articles submitted to Water Research for first review, and the review is very fast. However, high-quality articles are required. After all, it is a top journal in the field of water treatment, and the reviewers are strict. I was lucky, both reviewers gave major revisions, and the professional and sharp questions hit the nail on the head. There were three characteristics in my article: 1. Good idea and high innovation; 1. One-year innovation with large amount of data; 3. The first draft was revised for 20 times, which took 12 months. If one of these three features was missing, my article would be rejected. The waiting period after the revision also made me very anxious. I checked the status every day. When I revised it, it consumed a lot of effort and my vitality was greatly injured. During the period, the editor gave one month of revision time. Although I tried my best to manage it, in the end, I felt like I was going to run out of time, so I asked the editor for 15 more days. And it was just in time for the National Day when I revised it. I really think it's not easy. I learned the above experience before, and now it has been accepted. I come here to provide some experience and hope to help more people.

(80) Thank | 糖糖

There were two reviewers for the first round of review : one asked for major revision, the author suggested rejection with the possibility of re-submission. So the editor decided on rejection with the possibility of re-submission. I revised the paper and did new experiments according to the reviewer's comments. The manuscript was 40 pages long, but my responses to the reviewer comments were 50 pages long. Really should be thorough and careful, and do not ignore any comments unless there is a fundamental error. I re-submited and received the review comments after one and a half months. I got minor revision. The paper went back to the two original reviewers. The reviewer who previously asked for major revision accepted it, while the other reviewer asked for minor revision and gave three comments. After that round of revision, the paper was accepted the day after I resubmitted. The proof email was sent on the same day, and the paper was online the following day, so it is very efficient. As long as your work is novel, the data are solid, and you have a sincere attitude, plus a little luck, you will certainly be rewarded. I hope everyone can publish many papers!

(6) Thank | chocoring

The first round of revisions has been sent back, with the first reviewer agreeing to accept them. However, the second reviewer still has three questions, so further revisions are necessary.

(0) Thank | 中国抽象院院士

7.19 Review completed: 0➡️1
7.25 Invitation accepted: 1/8➡️3/15
It is hoped that two recommended reviewers will be added to the submission.

(0) Thank | 倥偬

Find another editor, no big deal.

(0) Thank | Allen

On July 21, I checked with the editor again, but I still don't understand this process.

(0) Thank | Sivan

The first round of feedback came back after a month, requiring a major revision. The two reviewers provided over thirty suggestions and conditions to address. Time to make some changes.

(0) Thank | 中国抽象院院士

Just want to complain, the level of the reviewers is too bad. They simply lack professionalism. You can tell one of the reviewers is an amateur just by looking at their comments. You would think that for such a prestigious journal, the reviewers would be very professional and knowledgeable, but the feedback is just terrible. One reviewer couldn't even understand English and pointed out 5 grammar issues that weren't actually grammatical errors. It's just a reflection of the true essence of academia - letting the most knowledgeable people research and letting the least knowledgeable people review.

(0) Thank | waterlili

6 Jul 2025 submit
9 Jul 2025 Invite Editor
10 Jul 2025 WE
11 Jul 2025 Under Review

(0) Thank | nihaojvzipi

30 Jun 2025 Submit to journal
04 Jul 2025 Editor Invited
07 Jul 2025 Editor Assigned

So slow真滴

(1) Thank | Wenxin Shi

6.20 submit to journal
6.23 editor invited
6.26 editor assigned
6.27 under review
6.28 Accept invitation: 0/5➡️1/5
7.4 Send invitation: 1/5➡️1/8

(0) Thank | 倥偬

Already submitted.

(0) Thank | 吴皓月

6.5 Submission
6.9 Editor Invitation
6.16 Editor Assignment
6.24 Rejection
The process may take some time.

(0) Thank | 科研没有SCI

Record this long period of time:
3.27 STJ
4.01 Editor invited
4.08 UR changed multiple times in the middle, with a total of 3 reviewers
5.07 Minimum number of reviews received (1 returned)
5.11 Minimum number of reviews received (3 requested), but editor only provided 2 comments
5.20 Major revision
5.29 UR
6.21 accepted
The process was agonizing, especially before R1, endured for half a month, felt uncomfortable. Although a major revision was requested, the issues were actually minor. Overall, it went relatively smoothly, wishing everyone good luck as well. Leaving this data here for reference.

(0) Thank | ZJU-Resdog

6.16 UR

(0) Thank | Sivan

Submit for review after four days, hoping for good luck!

(0) Thank | 中国抽象院院士

5.29 6-3-0
6.8 6-3-1
6.10 6-4-1
6.12 With editor 6-4-2
6.13 With editor

(0) Thank | Damonrt

Don't worry, it's only been a few days. Consider the editing time and efficiency, editors also have their own lives and things to do. I once waited almost a month from Editor invited to Editor Assigned for a minor revision, and then it was quickly accepted. It may also be processed quickly.

(0) Thank | chongdong

Hello, has the status remained unchanged since the editor invited on 9.27? And then it changed directly to accept on 9.30? It has been 3 days since the status changed to editor invited after my second revision submission, previously the status changed quickly from editor invited to Under Review after the first revision.

(0) Thank | howard88

Is the status supposed to change to "accept" after being invited by the editor on September 21, 2024, until September 26, 2024? My status also remained unchanged for 3 days after being invited by the editor following the second revision. During the first revision, the status quickly changed from "editor invited" to "under review."

(0) Thank | howard88

5.30 STJ
6.02 Editor invited
6.06 Editor Declined Invitation (What's going on, folks? Is this the prelude to rejection? ?)

(0) Thank | Sivan

0606 Editor Invited
0606 Editor Assigned

(0) Thank | bzdbzdbzdb

Please translate the following passage into English: 0604 submitted the second essay.

(0) Thank | bzdbzdbzdb