Recently, I have articles accepted by Water Resources Research and Water Research. Let me talk about my own opinion. Water Research of IWA is belong to the field of water environment and water treatment, which is relatively popular. It pays more attention to innovation. The amount of the articles is large, but the rejection rate is also high. Therefore, sometimes luck is particularly important. However, relatively speaking, many articles have a small workload. It is obvious that some experts have valueless articles published. Water Resources Research of AGU is belong to the field of hydrology and water resources, which is relatively unpopular and focuses on hydrology and water resources. The requirements for innovation are lower than Water Research. However, most of the articles are long and have a lot of work. It pays particular attention to field investigations and model analysis, and the discussion and analysis are relatively in-depth. Most of the reviewers are experts in the field, who are strict when reviewing. They also like to discuss details. The review cycle is long. In addition, the number of publications is not large, and there are few valueless articles. In short, both journals are one of the best journals in its field (except for CNS and its sub-journals). At least for now, it is hard to say which is better. Even if some articles of certain research direction (such as mine) can be submitted to both journals. There is no direct competition between the journals because of different emphases. I have never heard of anyone whose article was rejected by WR, was then transferred to WRR, and vice versa.

(12) Thank | xdhy

My research direction is coastal hydrogeochemistry. The article was first submitted to Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta; three months later, it was rejected. It was then transferred to Water Resources Research, and it was sent for review a week later. Judging from the status, the associate editor invited more than 20 reviewers in total. And finally, three of the reviewers reviewed the article. Comments of two reviewers returned in more than 3 months, and both of them advised accepting it after minor revision. The comments of each one was no less than 20 in total. The associate editor required moderate revision. Fortunately, the reviewers generally recognized my work, and it is not difficult to revise. After the submission of the revision, the associate editor did not send it for review but accepted it directly on the next day. In general, although the review cycle was not short, the efficiency of AGU journals is relatively high and the editor was responsible. The reason for slowness was that the efficiency of finding reviewers or specific expert was low. Judging from the level of journal and difficulty of submission, the level of Water Resources Research (WRR) was obviously higher than Journal of Occupational Health (JOH). The (review process of) article published on JOH was smooth, which was accepted directly after minor revision. However, its workload and innovation are much inferior to this one. Just for your information. After all, it is my personal experience of one or two articles of my own. I don’t make comments on other hydrological journals which I have not submitted to. Finally, I would like to thank the associate editor and two review experts, and I also wish WRR and AGU gets better and better!

(20) Thank | xdhy

It is the most authoritative journal in the field of groundwater and hydrology, which is better than WR in terms of reputation and quality, and 1–1.5 levels higher than Journal of Hydrology (I have published articles in these journals). The review is rigorous. WRR has strict quality review of manuscripts. The first draft and revised manuscripts must go through quality review before they are sent to the editor, and then find reviewers after the editor finds it valuable. This time it took 50 days to find a reviewer. The editor would not just find the wrong person to review the manuscript. There were 3 reviewers for the first review, 1 required a major revision and 2 required minor revisions. It took 1 month to supplement the data and content and reply to the reviewers with 13 pages; the second review gave two acceptance and required one minor revision, but the problem was not big. We supplemented materials and resubmitted after 2 weeks, then it was accepted after 2 weeks of review. The entire review process is very strict. It takes about one week for the quality review to be sent to the editor, and it takes about one week for the editor to decide whether to send it for review and invite reviewers. Overall efficiency is not slow, every step can be seen on the system. Get the format of the journal right, don't be sent back on quality review and waste time, then it will get faster.

(20) Thank | 海洋之心

Research field is the uncertainty analysis of hydrological models, including parameter inversion, optimization of observation schemes, and simulation of alternative systems. I Personally feel that WRR has higher standards for theoretical novelty than AWR and JoH. A friend in my research group submitted to WWR after being rejected by WRR, and the paper was accepted without any major hurdles. In addition, personally feel that AWR prefers paper on theoretical calculations, JoH prefers articles with application cases, and WRR is somewhere in between. My personal experience is (in the field of hydrological simulation and uncertainty analysis): 1) If you’ve never published in WRR before, the possibility of rejection is relatively high. If you have published several WRR papers, the possibility of rejection is much lower; 2) Logic is more important than grammar when writing a paper, but details such as grammar, formatting, and style will affect the reviewer's perception; 3) If there is a smart idea, even if it seems minor, it is likely to win the approval of the reviewers. If you only combined methods proposed by other people, the reviewers are less likely to approve it; 4) After a paper is written, it should be revised repeatedly (by yourself and peers); if you get the opportunity to consult  a big shot in the field, the quality of the paper will be improved a lot; 5) If you do algorithm-related research, try the Journal of Computational Physics, SIAM series of journals, and Environmental Modeling.

(88) Thank | zhangjiangjiang.dz@163.com

WRR is a top global academic journal in the field of hydrology and water resources published by the American Geophysical Union (AGU), founded in 1965. It covers research directions such as hydrological cycle, surface water/groundwater dynamics, water quality models, hydro-meteorology, and water resources management, focusing on innovative research on hydrological processes mechanisms and sustainable water resource solutions, known for its interdisciplinary innovation and high impact.

WRR is classified as a second-tier journal in the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) zone table = The CAS zone table has lost its authority in the field of hydrology = Hydrology discipline warning zone table: "CAS zone table"

(0) Thank | wangxuan

Do we have to pay for submissions now, comrades?

(0) Thank | kevin99

Haha, it must be because I always reject him that I was demoted to the second district.

(0) Thank | Hydro-Man

Comrades, it seems that WRR has been downgraded to second-tier in the Chinese Academy of Sciences this year.

(0) Thank | mary712

Although the result is good, it took 5 months from submission to the first review, and a total of 1 and a half years, which is really slow.

(0) Thank | sososo121

My first submission was rejected, and the editor asked for revisions before resubmission. Starting from February 6, 2025, I am waiting for Editor Assignment. Looking forward to a positive outcome.

(0) Thank | zephyr1

I submitted two articles at the same time, one was reviewed quickly while the other one has been delayed for over 20 days without being sent for review.

(0) Thank | Zhagn

The second review of Initial Quality Control Started has been going on for half a month with no news yet.

(0) Thank | bei_fang

May I ask, how long will it take to receive news after the modification?

(0) Thank | bei_fang

May I ask how long it will take to see results after returning from the major repair?

(0) Thank | bei_fang

Brother, how have you been since then?

(0) Thank | wangfachange

It has been 10 days since waiting for editor assignment, what happened afterwards?

(0) Thank | wangfachange

Have you encountered the issue of no response after clicking on "continue" when registering an account? Is it due to browser restrictions on the journal website? If anyone knows how to solve this problem, please let me know. Thank you!

(0) Thank | keyanhaonan111

Strong, a role model for learning!

(0) Thank | Geotechniquer

The reviewers of WRR raised very pertinent questions, making me feel that they are very knowledgeable in the research direction of the article. The reviewers of JoH did not seem to raise many good questions. Currently, the rejection rates for both WRR and JoH are about the same. But I prefer WRR. However, now that it is open access, the cost for one paper is $3000, which is nearly 20,000 RMB (which is actually not expensive compared to many other journals that charge $3500 or even $4000). I cannot afford to submit too many papers to WRR, so I will consider submitting more to JoH gradually.

(0) Thank | Hydro-Man

I am also in a similar situation, may I ask how you are doing now?

(0) Thank | summer rain

Yes, since July 2023, all AGU journals have become fully open access. The publication fee for WRR is $3000.

(0) Thank | 光之賀恩漢

After the second Waiting for Associate Editor Assignment, it shows Waiting for Reviewer Assignment, and then it changes back to Waiting for Associate Editor Assignment. Has anyone encountered a similar situation before?

(0) Thank | 马云爱用98k

Submitted to accepted for a whole year.

(1) Thank | sjr826

He eventually gave his opinion, but it took a really long time.

(0) Thank | sjr826

Bro, did the reviewer who didn't provide feedback during the second review finally give some feedback? Or was the decision made directly by the two editors?

(0) Thank | ch256