Time line of my  second re-submission: (should have been done in less than two weeks, and got delayed by other things happening at the end of the semester): 30 Dec 2017: Re-submission; 17 Jan 2018: Re-submission again (again saying that the other authors' mailboxes were not submitted to the system); 29 Jan 2018: With editor; 31 Jan 2018: Under review; 02 Feb 2018: Under review; 20 Feb 2018: Under review; 17 Mar 2018: Review comments completed; 19 Mar 2018: During decision; 19 Mar 2018: I received the editorial decision, minor revision (two reviewers, one gave 8 comments, the other gave one comment); 22 Mar 2018: Revised paper submitted; 05 Apr 2018: Accepted (third paper during my master degree study, finally accepted). Overall I feel the journal doesn’t require so much in novelty, but the research should be solid and rigorous, English should be decent, and comments should be addressed sincerely and thoroughly. With the right attitude and good effort, acceptance is not difficult. I want to emphasize that all authors' mailboxes must be correct, because an email with the verification link will be sent to each person's mailbox before the final acceptance, and the verification must be done before any further steps can be started.

(0) Thank | o(∩_∩)o 哈哈

2018.06.02 Submit2018.06.15 Rework format2018.06.18 Resubmit2018.07.03 Editorial Department2018.07.16 ReviewingIn the middle half of the month, change the review status2018.11.03 minor repair (modification time for 21 days)2018.11.10 Revised2018.11.24 Accept2018.11.26 Copyright Agreement Upload

(2) Thank | 123qwe

Our articlesAfter the first submission of the manuscript, the opinion was not serious but the rejection was made, the appeal, the editor let the overhaul re-attend.What is done is the non-metal based composite catalyst photo-Fenton degradation of xanthate wastewater.First submission time node:08 Jul 2017: Initial Date Submitted17 Jul 2017: Initial Date Submitted (said that other authors' mailboxes were not submitted to the system, returning the changes and submitting again - in fact, we wrote, don't understand if it is the system)26 Jul 2017: With Editor28 Jul 2017: Under review22 Aug 2017: Under review14 Sep 2017: Under review01 Oct 2017: Under review12 Oct 2017: Under review02 Nov 2017: Required Reviews Completed03 Nov 2017: Decision in Process06 Nov 2017: reject (two reviewers, one with seven comments, one with nine comments, all of which are easy to change, but the editors refused to submit the manuscript, so we appealed, the editor wrote back to make the overhaul re-submitment, and the second submission returned another)

(1) Thank | o(∩_∩)o 哈哈

After reading the previous comments, the situation of personal submission is similar to that of your predecessors.This journal is not very demanding on innovation.As long as the experimental design is reasonable and has a certain amount of work, it is not difficult to accept it!Very interesting, this journal has strict restrictions on the number of positive texts submitted.The editing of the ps proof is very hard, not only the language misspelling, but also some minor errors involving the profession can be found and pointed out to make modifications.

(4) Thank | 北北-Vivan

1. Research content: For the preparation of environmental functional materials for the control of water pollutants.2. Submission process: The draft submitted on May 28, 2017; the editor of the first review on June 5 said that the number of the main text of the article should not exceed six, and a little format problem was raised, and the adjustment was made again on June 8th.On July 17th, the reviewer's opinion was returned, and the overhaul was made; after August 1st, it was revised and then re-submited; on August 15th, the notice was received and directly acceptd.On August 16th, the copyright transfer form was filled in, saying that it will be published two weeks later.Throughout the process of 3 months, the individual feels that it is faster for the four district journals.3. Contribution feeling:(1) Feeling journals have new requirements for innovation; but the research content must be solid and serious;(2) Reviewers and editors are very serious;(3) When answering the question, if the author himself takes it seriously (answer the question carefully and carefully modify the manuscript); after the modification, it is easy to be acceptd.4. Then pick up again!

(10) Thank | 保卫北极熊

Published in December 2016, reworked in March 2017, overhauled, and rehabilitated at the end of March.Received on May 10, 2017.Contribute to luck, different editors, different ways of treating.

(5) Thank | XuXQ

This journal has a moderate review, but the time is too long.From the time of submission to the present, it has been more than 6 months, and the intermediate revision (small repair) has not yet had a final opinion.

(3) Thank | mijia

This journal, dare not say that it is a hundred and one hundred, can also be called easy to publish.The content of the article is not high.That is, the impact factor does not go up.

(6) Thank | 韩主任

lasted for 7 months and was received four times. The editors and reviewers of all kinds of wonderful drafts met and were perfect...Waiting to see the journal as soon as possible...

(1) Thank | Anonymous

May 26th contribution submission September 12th review revision September 23rd submission revised draft September 27th acceptance

(1) Thank | Anonymous

2013.5.4Submission 2013.7.9 Overhaul2013.7.23 minor repair 2013.8.27 received 2013.9.10 school draft

(1) Thank | Anonymous

2013.4.30 entered the review stage 2013.6.30 review finished (during the period also wrote a reminder once) 2013.7.5 overhaul 2011.7.13 Submit revised manuscript 2013.7.16 Received the review speed is normal, I don't know when it will be officially published.

(1) Thank | Anonymous

Want to ask everyone to select, WST papers limit 5000 words including references and abstracts

(0) Thank | Anonymous

made a few papers in WST, allAfter reviewing the meeting, I reviewed the manuscript again, so the time on the process dragged on very long.From the June meeting, the editorial department was notified to enter the review in October, and the revised opinion was received in December. The second year was officially accepted in February, and the paper was issued in July of the second year.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

has been with the editor since the submission, and began to review the manuscript after 20 days. I met a very knowledgeable expert and tried it for 10 days. The criticism was more profound and directly based on the manuscript, but I was also convinced.Oral, but it’s not too long.Ps: At that time, I spent a lot of effort to delete the article from the accumulated 6500 words to 5000 words...

(1) Thank | Anonymous

overhaul twice and then directly received, no substantive review comments, only change the grammar

(1) Thank | Anonymous

has been with the editor, waited for 1 month review comments, and then the editor refused to say that it does not meet the theme.Hey, why don't you say that, white waited for 1 month, the key is that the expert opinion has nothing

(0) Thank | Anonymous

for more than two months, was rejected.The impact factor of this journal is not high, but it is more recognized in the water treatment.The length of the article has a word limit.

(2) Thank | Anonymous

1The manuscript submitted in the month was given a major repair opinion in less than one month. It felt that the editor gave the overhaul. There was basically no specific opinion. After the revision, the review was repeated and waited for two months to reject the two reviewers.Comments on some language and details of the problem 爹 爹

(1) Thank | Anonymous

conference article was recommended to this journal, the editor asked a few questions, basically no change, told a few days ago has been acceptd.The speed is very fast.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Submission on December 14, 2012; overhaul on March 20, 2013; rehabilitated on April 4, 2013; accepted on April 8, 2013

(1) Thank | Anonymous

I have a long time for this article. On September 6th, I will return to the overhaul in early October, and return to the major repair on October 29th.The reviewer gave it to the reviewer and received it on January 9.In the middle may be just to catch up with the Christmas holiday, a total of four months!

(1) Thank | Anonymous

8-31Submission, 10-25 overhaul, 11-13 repair, 12-17 minor repair, 12-18 repair, 12-21 reception.The speed is still ok, and the number of words is strictly limited.The opinions of the two reviewers are relatively pertinent.

(1) Thank | Anonymous

10-8Submission, and then submitted for review, 11-8 or so overhaul, due to the middle of the matter, submitted to the deadline of 21 days, did not submit for review, but has been in the editor's hands, still very worried, andFor 2 weeks, the editor asked Xiao Xiu to change a few grammar minor errors, and after submitting, another week, 12-18 accepted.Speed ​​is still ok, but it seems that publishing is going to lag a few months.The number of words is strictly limited.Personally think that this journal is not bad, but the impression left to many people is to include the meeting, and because the impact factor is not high, it seems that many people are not willing to select, the peers work together!

(1) Thank | Anonymous

Although the IF is lower, the recognition within the line is not lower than BT, JHR, etc.The editors have higher requirements for English, and the reviewers are also very rigorous. They may be revised more seriously. After the overhaul, they will be submitted directly the next day.11-09-2012 Editor Decision - Accept for WST10-09-2012 Author Submits Revision Confirmation 29-08-2012 Editor Decision - Major Revision 22-07-2012 Auth

(0) Thank | Anonymous