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

Is OA necessary, and does it cost money?

(0) Thank | hln123

Both WRR and JH have been published, and from the perspective of individuals and their circles, the difficulty and recognition of WRR are significantly higher than JH. Generally speaking, WRR requires a high level of rigor in innovation and research methods, and tends to focus more on exploring breakthroughs in basic and cutting-edge theories; JH, on the other hand, leans more towards application, with many articles lacking innovation, giving a feeling of a case study.

P.S.: One more small difference to add, if the experimental design is good (whether indoor or outdoor), but the research methods and conclusions are conventional, it is possible to be published in JH; however, relying solely on experiments without sufficient methodological and cognitive innovation, it is almost impossible to be published in WRR.

(0) Thank | 柳贯一

Another way to put it is that the top three journals in hydrology are WRR, AWR, and JoH. I've asked a few experts in the field (mostly in groundwater), and generally, AWR is more recognized than JoH.

(0) Thank | Hydro-Man

I have not submitted to HESS, but I have submitted to JOH WRR. Whether it is the depth of questions from reviewers or the innovation and interest of the published articles, it supports that WRR is one level higher than JOH. If JOH is equivalent to the College English Test Band 6, then WRR can be compared to a professional Band 4. However, the overall review cycle of AGU is much longer than that of Elsevier, and in terms of cost-effectiveness, JOH is better, especially when WRR has been downgraded to a second-tier journal. In the early stages of research, submit more to JOH, and later pursue quality by trying WRR, GRL, and sub-journals.

(0) Thank | sososo121

There are many papers on JoH that make me feel like "this can be published on JoH". From my personal experience, JoH is more inclined towards application, and reviewers sometimes do not understand the content of the papers; WRR values theoretical innovation more, and reviewers are generally more professional, providing very insightful feedback. In my personal experience, papers rejected by WRR were accepted for publication on JoH. In terms of impact, HESS is not as influential as JoH and WRR, so I have never thought about submitting to HESS.

(1) Thank | Hydro-Man

hess and jh also warned, right?

(0) Thank | ny1209

The three major journals in the field of hydrology (WRR, HESS, JH) have all been published, and it is not felt that WRR is significantly better than the other two, at most it is slightly better. On XHS, there are often people saying that WRR and JH are not in the same league, perhaps not understanding what "league" means.

(0) Thank | ny1209

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