The review cycle of this journal is extremely long. The article was reviewed for one year and rejected in the end. I will never submit to this journal any longer.

(0) Thank | 中中中678

Very good journal. Many well-known experts publish here.Rapid growth in recent years. The review is very rigorous. We had three reviewers for the initial review, major revision. The response letter, containing the comments and our answers, were 17 pages long. We added two sections in the paper during the revision. After 3 months, the decision was minor revision,, only four comments.

(2) Thank | km588

2022-04-21 Submission
2022-08-08 major revision
2022-10-15 Revision Received
2023-02-15 minor revision
2023-03-07 Revision Received
2023-05-19 Accepted

To be honest, the review process is a bit slow. The first review took three months, the second review took four months, and the crucial part is that after the minor revision in the second review, there was another round of submission, which took another two months. The review process is very strict, and it feels like a complete overhaul with each round of revisions. The journal is a very good one, with a high impact factor. However, the Chinese Academy of Sciences' classification system is messed up - not only is it not classified as a top-tier journal, it's not even in the first tier. JAMES remains a leader in the field of Earth science modeling, along with the GMD journal, enjoying a high reputation internationally, but unfortunately being overlooked and trampled upon domestically. Hopefully, the domestic evaluation system will not be too utilitarian and will pay more attention to basic research, providing fair evaluations.

(6) Thank | njuhewei

good journal, but overall slightly weaker than AMS's JAS, JCWait.More emphasis on the display and analysis of simulation results.The reasons for the high impact factor are: one is that there are few articles, and the other is that there are many big cows on the draft.

(0) Thank | omyladygaga