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

Should we submit it for review? I feel like WR has been very quick lately.

(0) Thank | 好事将至1

4.28 Editor Assigned.

(0) Thank | df666

4.21 submitted
4.23 Editor Invited

(0) Thank | df666

4.18 has been invested in WR.

(0) Thank | hohai

How long does WR re-review give the reviewer, two weeks (14 days) or three weeks (21 days)? One reviewer has not returned comments for 19 days, have they gone missing? Urgently need to finish the article, should we remind them to review?

(0) Thank | liumh25

Are there many sensors invested in this?

(0) Thank | NATHANIEL-C

I also received a manuscript number assigned on 3.26, and I know that as of now on 4.8, I am still invited by the editor.

(0) Thank | 繁星几度

I was invited as an editor from April 1st until yesterday.

(0) Thank | ZJU-Resdog

25-03-26 Editor Invited has been going on until now. To be fair, are all editor dads this busy?

(0) Thank | 啦啦啦elf

Still the same...

(0) Thank | 无

How are you doing now?

(0) Thank | chongdong

Congratulations! I don't know if it's because all journals are now facing scrutiny by Clarivate and the risk of being put on hold, so every step is strictly controlled. In fact, this is also a good thing, it's actually an opportunity for small research groups.

(0) Thank | 鼻涕香猪

This time, from the reviewers to the editors, everything feels very rigorous, and the process has been a bit lengthy.

2024.12.11 submitted
2024.12.19 under review
2025.1.31 major revision (1 minor, 1 major)
2025.2.21 under review
2025.3.4 major revision (the major reviewer raised another issue)
2025.3.17 under review
2025.3.22 minor revision (reviewer has no issue, editor raised a question)
2025.3.31 accept

(0) Thank | 兔兔

Three minor revisions and one rejection, rejected as well?!?!

(0) Thank | 给早起的人一杯卡布奇诺

It's been almost three weeks in the editing hands, and there hasn't been any changes yet.

(0) Thank | 无

I have been editing this for almost three weeks.

(0) Thank | 无

The date is wrong.
3.28: Editor Assigned

(0) Thank | 鼻涕香猪

March 17, 2025 STJ
3.19: Editor invited
3.28: Editor Assigned
3.29: Under Review
Good luck!

(0) Thank | 鼻涕香猪

My situation is the same. Submitted on March 18th, invited by the editor on March 19th. It's been a week already, but there has been no change.

(0) Thank | 鼻涕香猪

Please wait for good news about the revision from the editor on 3.23.

(0) Thank | howard88

2025.03.07-Submission
2025.03.10-Editor Invited
2025.03.21-Editor Assigned
It feels a bit slow, it's been 2 weeks and it hasn't been sent for review yet.

(0) Thank | flydragon_shen