ENGINEERING GEOLOGY

Recently, the impact factor has increased, and the number of submissions has surged. I firstly submitted the manuscript at the end of April and the comments requiring a revision came back in mid-June. There were two reviewers, one reviewer gave some more comprehensive and pertinent opinions, mainly on error analysis and parameter sensitivity analysis, and a major revision was required; the second reviewer was very unfriendly and directly pointed that the article was feasible theoretically , but the language is too poor, and it was recommended to modify the language; after the revision was completed and resubmitted in August, the first reviewer was satisfied and did not ask any more questions. However, the second reviewer symbolically raised a few language issues and requested a major revision; the revision was submitted for the third time in October, and the second reviewer found a few questions where he had read in the article and requested another major revision; the revision was resubmitted in early November, and it has been under review for 15 days till now. I am waiting anxiously. In November, I will finish the postdoctoral work and attend the school meeting. The article being delayed makes me really depressed.

(2) Thank | yajun_rhul

The article is about regional landslide warning. A major revision was required in the first review. The editor asked questions about Practical significance of the results and International relevance. There were two other reviewers, one asked a lot of key questions, and the other quite recognized the article. Then it was revised and submitted in about a month. The reviewers were quite satisfied, but the editor rejected the manuscript. The reason was still on the problem of Practical significance of the results and International relevance, thinking that the discussion part should increase International relevance. In fact, I didn't understand how to increase International relevance, also didn't figure out how to revise it to improve "Practical significance of the results". The editor also asked me to provide the resolution and scale of the original data, which actually cannot be provided. It is recommended to take every small issue from the editor seriously, otherwise even if the reviewer is satisfied, the manuscript may still be rejected.

(5) Thank | 你好123

2018-10-12 Submitted / With editor; 2018-11-22 Reviewer invited after we urged; 2018-11-23 Under Review; 2018-12-22 Ready for decision; 2019-01-21 Modest revision; 2019-01-26 Resubmitted; 2019-01-31 Reviewer invited; 2019- 03-01 Results after being urged: the original reviewer refused to review and new reviewer was invited; 2019-05-20 Reviewer invited, and I sent a reminder letter again (saying that if there was no news, I will not able to graduate). 2019-05-22 Accepted and received for production. (Apologies from the editor: Apologies-this paper did end up in a strange place in the editorial system and it was difficult to find! You may understand it by yourself.)

(0) Thank | Wolf_

Close match to scope is crucial. Moderate language requirements.

(1) Thank | Anonymous

It has been 10 days since the assistant editor changed to the editor, and the next step has not yet taken place.what happened?

(6) Thank | zgbhpu@163.com

engineering geological rock geotechnical field international authoritative journal, journal citationReports area 1, industry recognition is very high, worthy of submission

(0) Thank | rock

There are two articles in the middle, and the review period is about three months.

(2) Thank | Anonymous

Very good journal, submitted a major repair in a month or so, and then delayed for a period of time, sent an email to the editor to explain the situation, the editor gave a full understanding, thenAfter returning to the past, more than one manuscript was returned in one month, and it was given to Xiao Xiu. It took three days of minor repairs and returned to the editorial department for 4 days.Now that the impact factor is rising, it is worth a select.

(15) Thank | Anonymous

3Waiting for the month, the tragedy of the thesis, but I am very grateful to the experts for their opinions. I am sure of it and negative, and it is very good for the improvement of the thesis.

(1) Thank | yanwu1206

Journal review is fast: May submission - August return to October - OctoberPublished in December.The quality of journal articles is also ok, and there are better journals in the geology.

(6) Thank | Anonymous

I feel that the review is very fast, I came back in less than two months, and the review was very serious, giving a bunch of opinions

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Reviewing for nine months, only one review comment came back... Edit reply, the content does not meet the journal, refused to draft, and suggested to change.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

has been submitted for more than 5 months, and the status is still Reviewer(s) invited.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

has been submitted for three months, and the status is still Reviewer(s) invited.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

The paper submission time is July 16, 2011, and it was notified on February 17, 2012 that it was moderately modified. It was received today on June 20, 2012. From submission to receipt, it lasted for 11 months..

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Journal Homepage URL: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find ... /503330/description

(0) Thank | Anonymous

This journal is better to select forAccepted.Some of our professors originally selectd for this. I have two articles. As a funder, some students who are engaged in environment and ecology can try it, but the professors will stop.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

is a relatively bullish journal of geotechnical and geological directions, two editors, one is Crosta for university professors and the other is Shlemon for engineering-experienced teaching.The journal's previous impact factor was high, averaging 1.9, which is considered top in the rock land quality category. It has declined in the last year or two, but the quality of the journal is still good.

(3) Thank | Anonymous