Submitted on September 7; after about a week the status showed editor assigned; by September 25 it showed under review, but later the status data became October 5 even though the status was still under review. I hope this means I will be given the opportunity to revise the paper. Update: received review comments on November 23, major revision, but the comments from the two reviewers are not harsh so should be easy to answer. Update again: submitted a revised manuscript on December 26, and then the status showed editor assigned the next day. I received the email of acceptance for publication on January 2.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Paper was sent to two reviewers for review. One is very positive, and the other did not review the paper. The editor finally just decided to reject the paper for no clear reasons.

(0) Thank | aiguozhe2

3 Submitted at the end of the month, received review comments at the beginning of June, two reviewers, overhauled, repaired back at the end of July, received the second review comments at the end of August, minor repairs, repaired back,Accepted in early October, online after a few days, is expected to see the journal in January and February next year.Need to be reminded that this journal is not allowed to increase or decrease the author when the manuscript is revised, so please add the authors to be added in the first draft. I will add it when I don’t add other authors to save the manuscript.I can't add an author because it took more than a month to accept it.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Attach the length requirement for the reference of the person to select:"It should be clear that papers of a size which exceeds 8000 words (including text, references, figs and tables), cannot be further processed for publication. Each fig/table is counted for 300 words.Please check that no more than 10 – 15 % of the references are from the same journal and no more than three references are from the same author.Finally, avoid parts of text which have been published previously in other papers of yours. ..

(3) Thank | EP

an article on urban runoff, submitted to receive for six months.Except for the majority of the month, I used to reply to Review. It was one and a half months spent in the editor.From the time of submission to the review, from receiving the reviewer comments to receiving each two weeks.I did not see the word count before submitting the manuscript. When the review comments came back, the number of words was attached to the letter (8000 words, including chart documents! One picture, table according to 300 words).So I need to greatly reduce the length of the article.It’s quite boring.Others are fine, and the journal is not bad.

(1) Thank | EP

6 In the past, after the editor, I have been in the state of Reviewers invited until the end of January of the following year..It was really depressed during this period...In the end, I wanted to retract the manuscript, but, after finally, I reviewed the reviewer. The reviewer used two reviewers recommended by me, so I accepted it..Accepted the next day after the minor repair, and online after one week...As for publish, I don't know. It is estimated that this year I can see the journal

(0) Thank | happy

Editors and reviewers are still more serious, and have been carefully modified to be acceptd.

(0) Thank | luowan@yzu.edu.cn

This journal has a bad reputation. In order to increase the impact factor, the self-citation rate is very high. It is explicitly required that the author quote many articles in this journal for nearly two years, and it is very popular in the industry.Many people's contempt

(2) Thank | Anonymous

Impact factor growth soon. The European Water Conservancy Society journal, one of the articles, review time is about 8 months, minor repairAfter accepting, one of the journals with good water resources, but it should not be considered top.When editing, the editor said that it is necessary to add an article that references the journal in recent years, which may be the reason for its impact factor soaring

(1) Thank | Anonymous