JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY

(Due to space limitations, continue with the previous comments) For the first submission, the status of Reviewers Invited lasted for almost five months. During the period, several emails were sent to inquire about the status. The editor-in-chief and deputy editor-in-chief are very nice, and responded every inquiry timely explaining to me the reason (it is difficult to invite reviewers). The status changed to Under Review almost in February, and then the result returned in mid-March: Moderate Revision. There are two reviewers, and both reviewed very carefully, requiring verification of the reliability of the model (supported by more test data) in the content of the article. Fortunately, the data is readily available and can be processed directly. One of the reviewers also asked a lot of questions about the structure of the article (I submitted it for the first time, and the structure of the article was a bit confusing. Very honored to meet such a responsible reviewer). It was revised for a month, and most of the time was spent to adjust the structure of the article (a lot of additions and deletions were made in the process). During the minor revision, the reviewers again asked more than 10 questions because of the big changes in the previous version, and the revisions needed to be submitted within a week. Accepted within 10 days. [In the whole process, I’m especially grateful to the two editors and two reviewers for their responsibilities. During this year, another article of mine was reviewed by a reviewer in China, and the whole process was not substantive. Opinions were all about little faults of all kinds. Two re-submissions, two tragedies (I only mean those people I met), and I had no choice but to submit to another journal. In contrast, I really appreciate the responsible attitude of the reviewers.]

(8) Thank | 930035683@qq.com

The initial submission was in October. In January of the following year, I received review comments asking for moderate revision. There were two reviewers and the first reviewer raised more than 30 questions, objecting to the rationality of the method chosen. After submitting the revision in February, the reviews were returned in March. The first reviewer rejected it, and the second reviewer accepted it. I resubmitted in April and after two more rounds of review and revision the article was accepted in November.

(0) Thank | 751496002@qq.com

Received Date: 27 March 2018Revised Date: 2 February 2019Accepted Date: 5 February 2019

(2) Thank | wolf5666

9.04 Submission10.14 minor repairs, three reviewers added AE, three minor repairs, and four experts were positive, and the editors gave minor repairs.11.1 Submitting the revised draft, the reason for it has dragged on for a long time11.5 Receive.GCA was rejected for two months. After a lot of revisions and supplementary experiments, I compared the CG and finally chose JH. At least the speed is much faster than before. The IF should exceed 4 points next year.In addition, the editor-in-chief invited the Journal of Hydrology X to publish. Do you have any colleagues who know how to introduce this new issue?Before we proceed with publication, we would like to share an exciting opportunity with you, ie the chance to publish this paper in the new journal, Journal of Hydrology X. Journal of Hydrology X is the fully Gold open access and fully online ('e-only') partner journal of Journal of Hydrology.

(7) Thank | xdhy

The first select was rejected by the editor, and the editor made 13 comments.After the revision, the second re-submitment, 21 days, a minor repair, a 32 comments, carefully revised for one month, the reviewer gave the reception, a total of less than three months.More exchange of water resources skirt: six two hundred three one three four four

(1) Thank | moguxp

2018.08.24 :submitted;2018.09.02: editor assigned; (probably this date)2018.09.03: under review;Until now: under review;Wish me good luck!

(26) Thank | 石头青年

Processing speed is a bit slow, June 26, 2018 contributionAfter a month to invite reviewers, it seems that the time has been updated. It lasted for one month, and under review on August 30th. Less than 10 days, September 8th, 2018, Reviewer(s) was invited again.It may be difficult for reviewers to find them, but the processing efficiency is a bit low....

(3) Thank | 382771932@qq.com

The first sci selectd during the master's degree can be published on the journal of hydrology. It is a great honor!Articles that wish to be selectd in another journal can also be accepted!The editor-in-chief and the deputy editor-in-chief are very professional and have also put forward some valuable opinions.The reviewers are very powerful and of a high level. They should be big bulls in the field, affirming the innovation of my article, and also asking a lot of questions.It took a whole month to reply one by one, and I learned a lot in this process. Thanks again to the editor, deputy editor and reviewer!The following is my submission process, you can make a reference.2017.12.12 Submission2017.12.13 Editor Assigned2017.12.20 Under Review2018.1.29 Moderate Revision2018.2.28 Submit revised draft2018.3.2 Under Review2018.4.1 With Editor2018.4.2 Decision in process2018.4.3 Accept

(143) Thank | yangdaming1990@163.com

The first submission on October 18, 2016.On January 8, 2017, I received a review, Moderate revision.The two reviewers, the first reviewer, raised more than 30 questions. Several questions were more difficult. He directly denied the rationality of the method chosen.Submitted on February 28, 2017.Return to comment on March 12, 2017, Reject.The first reviewer rejected the draft and the second reviewer received it.The second submission on April 25, 2017 was the last editor of the selection. The editor-in-chief was also the last two reviewers for the trial.On July 2, 2017, I received a review, Moderate Revision.Still a matter of method, the first reviewer insisted on using what he thought was reasonable,A revised draft will be submitted on August 26, 2017.On October 6, 2017, I received a second review, or Moderate revision...However, the first reviewer actually gave the rejection and the second reviewer accepted it.The Moderate Revision that the editor finally gave.Interestingly, this time the editor-in-chief changed someone and changed it inexplicably...Returned after the revision on November 1, 2017.On November 3, 2015, the editor-in-chief did not submit a review...Received the article directly.

(8) Thank | 751496002@qq.com

said that it is more tears, lasted for nearly 3 years, just received.Started to select for WRR, lasted for a year, and finally tragedy.I selectd for JH, and it has been going back and forth for two years. I just notified me to accept it today.The first SCI.The level of the journal is very high. The editor and deputy editor are very good, serious and responsible, thank you!In the process, it really improved a lot.

(7) Thank | JoH

I was very late when the article came back.Busy, it will take another two months to postpone the deadline.A total of 8 months was finally accepted.In addition, I really want to know how the Chinese Academy of Sciences rated the journals. It is really interesting.JoH and HP are top journals for people who are doing hydrology and water resources. My foreign big cattle bosses have N articles of HP a year, but they are not top-notch in the level judged by the Chinese Academy of Sciences.It’s really confusing.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

moderate After the revision, the external audit will be received directly after one month. The first top paper, Mark will commemorate.keep it up!

(8) Thank | 暖气团

did not submit for reviewBut the editor is quite goodhigh efficiencyI returned the article within a few days.Say that it does not meet the journal's range of interestsBut we feel that the direction is not wrong.It’s just that this journal has published a lot of articles in my research direction in recent years.So if the article is not particularly attractiveNot so much neededThe editor made some helpful amendments.And recommended several more suitable journalsSo it feels good to people

(0) Thank | ececo

2016, submitted at the end of July, received a review opinion one month later, a very positive minor repair, a positive but a lot of problems are difficult to overhaul.Surprisingly, the editor and the editor-in-chief acted as the other two reviewers. They read the article very carefully and gave a lot of suggestions but they all expressed interest, so they gave the mode revision.Efforts were made to amend for one month, replying about 40 pages, and then the reviewer was touched, a small minor repair, a day of change, a counter-receipt, and received within two days.It is less than three months from submission to employment.I feel that Tim is particularly responsible and responsible. He is also the deputy editor of RSE journal. He is particularly impressed with his work efficiency and serious attitude. The assistant editor of JoH is also very good.Personally think that this journal is good both in quality and speed.I hope everyone will send a good work.

(1) Thank | Joey

The first time was submitted in June 2016, and the external review was one month. Both review comments were rejected.Not reconciled, the article was revised according to the review comments, basically equal to rewriting.On August 4th, I submitted the manuscript again. On September 6th, I received the review comments. Both reviewers gave a positive evaluation, but the small questions are still quite a lot. I gave the mode revise, and I revised it back in early October. 10On the 28th, I received an editorial comment, Xiao Xiu, submitted a revised draft on November 2, and accepted it on November 4.Throughout the process, the editor-in-chief and the deputy editor-in-chief were very strong, and each link gave a lot of good advice.I also realized that the rejection of the article is not a bad thing. The important thing is to learn the lesson and carefully modify the article.Every article is created by one's own painstaking efforts, and all that is experienced in the submission process is a valuable asset.

(1) Thank | Navy

submitted in mid-December last year, and returned to editor-in-chief for moderation revision in about 20 days, giving a month time (intermediately separated by a Christmas, the speed is also very strong).One of the reviewers, the minor revision, allowed the discussion to include the deficiencies in the study; a major revision, plus data.In the middle of the final exam, it took a few days to modify after the test. After the change, I returned to accept for about 20 days.In general, the speed depends on the editor and reviewer. The editor who handles the manuscript is very powerful. The reviewer is also the author of many similar articles on it. The review speed is fast!The first SCI on JH, come on!

(8) Thank | fengyu272

reviewed the draft very seriously.1 year review.Long enough.

(0) Thank | 好先生

Everyone said that it was fast, why did I select for a week, and the status just changed to editor assigned.

(0) Thank | SYSUer

Modify twice, for a total of two months, receive

(1) Thank | Shi

The biggest advantage of a good journal is that it is a blessing that does not make you wait. A word is fast, and the processing speed is fast and free. It seems that there is not much problem at present.

(2) Thank | 中囯來的科學家

The oldest top journal in hydrology, with the same name as WRR, although HES is now rising rapidly due to open access and European self-esteem, but industry influence and re-reaction cannot be compared with WRR, JH.

(5) Thank | sf

The first review is moderate revise, there are 2 monthsModification time.There are two reviewers, and the evaluation of the article is also very positive. The comments are very pertinent.It took more than a month to modify and submit, and it was received in less than a month.A good place for this journal is that the reviewer's name is given, and the reviewer has a big cow.The big cow was very careful, and the inaccuracies of several words were pointed out, and I helped me think about the words that were replaced.In general, journals are faster and more influential, and everyone is worth a try.

(6) Thank | Anonymous

Editor Assigned It’s been almost two months. I don’t know if there are similar situations for the insect friends....

(0) Thank | Anonymous

This journal seems to be really not very good, despite the large number of articles.In August last year, the manuscript was returned to the revised opinion in May this year. In the past, there was no technical problem. It was just a small problem. The picture was changed to black and white. After the modification, it was returned. It was acceptd in the past three months.This is my first paper on this, and I am very happy because the work I did was not pure hydrology, but the direction of interdisciplinary.Although it is lower than the IF of WR and WRR, this journal is still very recognized.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

The most rigorous journals that have been reviewed, one moderate revision, two minor revisions, tossed8 months, but the under review process is quite fast, twice more than a month, is the editor is slower, of course, this is because the editor-in-chief

(0) Thank | Anonymous