waiting for reviewer assignment jgr

Notes from the JGR-Space Physics Editor-in-Chief

Postings from the journal's eic, mike liemohn.

Manuscript Status Tables

One of the slightly confusing things that GEMS does to authors is show them the Manuscript Status Table at the bottom of the page regarding a submission. It shows all status changes throughout the life of the manuscript, from the initiation of the submission process through quality control, reviewer assignment, and decision. While this is, in general, useful information for authors to have that let’s you know where your paper is along the editorial path, it can sometimes be a point of frustration and concern.

Let me go through a few example tables to explain some of the entries. For full disclosure, these are all from my own papers on which I was either first author or coauthor. Really, though, it doesn’t matter, because you cannot tell the author or paper from this table. I will go through one in this post, and then more in subsequent posts (hopefully up in the next day or two).

For the first submission of a new manuscript, the table might look something like this:

Let’s go through it chronologically, which means starting from the bottom of the table and working our way up. The first 3 entries are all at the pace of the corresponding author. As you can see, for this paper, it took about an hour to work through the submission process. While that seems onerous, the metadata and supplemental information we as editors receive from you is extremely valuable, so we appreciate your extra time to make these entries. The file conversion and approval also takes some time.

When you click the final button to submit the manuscript, then the manuscript is passed off to AGU HQ staff for the quality control. Some of this is automatically processed (like the creation of a Similarity Report), but other parts, like the Data Policy compliance check, are done by hand. It looks like for this manuscript, all of the processing was completed the same day as the initial submission.

It then goes off to me, the Editor-in-Chief, for assignment to one of the five editors (including myself). My biggest concerns there are editor expertise in the field, load balance between the editors, and avoiding institutional conflicts between authors and editors. I pay attention to your preference requests and, more often than not, grant your request and assign that editor. Interestingly, there is no status line item for this step; my timing to assign the paper to a specific editor is not recorded in this table.

The next entry is “Contacting Potential Reviewers.” This line item is added once the editor has selected potential reviewers and clicked the “Done” button on that screen. The emails will go out within a day, either by the editor clicking a button in GEMS or one of the AGU staff clicking that button. It looks like, for this manuscript, the multi-step process of me assigning this paper to an editor, the editor assigning himself as Associate Editor, and the editor selecting 6 potential reviewers took just under a day.

The next line, “Under Review,” indicates that someone has clicked the button in GEMS to agree to be a referee for this paper. You notice, however, that at the same time the next line appeared in the table, “Contacting Potential Reviewers.” This is one of those confusing parts of the system. Because the editor requested 2 reviewers for this paper (the default for JGR-Space Physics), the status of the paper reverts back to “Contacting…” because the system still desires another reviewer. So, there is a second “Under Review” line item above this, indicating the time that a second person agreed to review the manuscript. It looks like, for this paper, this process took quite a while: 6 days to secure the first reviewer and another 18 days to secure the second.

The next line is “With Editor For Decision.” This means that both reviews are in and the editor has a “red arrow” in the GEMS system indicating that the paper is ready for a decision. The last review came in early one morning and the editor apparently saw the task in GEMS and made a decision just a few hours later, shown as another line, “Decision Made.” However, here is another confusing entry; the two lines are repeated. This is because the decision email is sent to AGU staff, who add the attachments and whatever other processing the decision letter might need, and then they officially send the email on to the corresponding author. The final line item at the top, “Waiting for Revision,” is when the decision email actually went out to the author.

I hope you find this helpful. There are a few confusing entries in resubmission manuscript status tables, as well, and I’ll cover those in the very near future.

Share this:

5 thoughts on “ manuscript status tables ”.

Pingback: Manuscript Status Tables Part 2 | Notes from the JGR-Space Physics Editor-in-Chief

Pingback: Editorial Workflow | Notes from the JGR-Space Physics Editor-in-Chief

Pingback: My Top Posts of All Time | Notes from the JGR-Space Physics Editor-in-Chief

Thanks for this entry. As a first time author to GRL, I was a bit confused why there were two “Contacting Potential Reviewers” entries. Your entry cleared this up

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

[email protected]

Submitted my paper. Now what?

Feb 18, 2022 | Scholarly publishing

There is something of an air of mystery as to what actually happens to your manuscript once you’ve pressed that “submit” button. It seemingly goes off into cyberspace and you are left playing the waiting game.

These days, if you’ve submitted to a journal via an online submission system, you will be able to track its progress to some extent as you will generally be able to see what stage it’s at. The names of these stages can, however, seem fairly vague and almost worse than no information at all.

So let’s translate them. There are many different submission systems and the stages a manuscript goes through during peer review does differ system to system (and, indeed, journal to journal), so for the purposes of this post we’re going to look at the most common stages of the most common submission site: ScholarOne (formally Manuscript Central).

First Steps

Initially your manuscript will go through stages such as “Awaiting Admin Checklist” and/or “Awaiting Editor Assignment” depending on how new submissions are initially checked on the journal. These stages tend to be moved through fairly swiftly as they are just the editorial team checking that your submission is suitable for peer review and then deciding which of the editors will be responsible for it during the process.

Awaiting Reviewer Selection

This is the first stage of the peer-review process and your manuscript will be here until the assigned Editor has selected some suitable experts to invite to review.

Once enough reviewers have been selected, the manuscript will move on to the next stage. If only one reviewer agrees to review and all the others decline the invitation, however, your manuscript may well return to this stage while the Editor selects more. So if you log in to check on progress several weeks after submission and find your manuscript at this stage, it doesn’t necessarily mean that no action has been taken.

Awaiting Reviewer Invitation

This means that potential reviewers have been selected, but have yet to be invited. Manuscripts quite often return to this stage if not enough of the invited reviewers accepted the invitation so further invitations need to be sent. It’s quite common for editors to select a lot of reviewers, but only invite a few at a time.

Awaiting Reviewer Assignment

This rather ambiguous stage is when reviewers have been invited, but we are waiting for the required number to agree to review. In other words, at this point, the ball is squarely in the reviewers’ court!

In an ideal world, enough of the invited reviewers will agree to review and your manuscript will move on to the next stage. In reality, however, it is quite normal for invited reviewers to be unavailable and for your manuscript to return to one of the earlier stages a couple of times.

Awaiting Reviewer Scores

This is the stage that the editorial team will be striving to get your manuscript to as swiftly as possible. If your manuscript is at this stage, then enough experts have agreed to read and evaluate it and we just need to wait for the reviewers to return their comments so that a decision can be taken.

Once through this stage, your manuscript will move on to a stage such as “Awaiting Recommendation” and/or “Awaiting Decision” and it generally won’t be long before a decision is sent to you.

So That’s It?

That’s it. There are, of course, many things that can cause delays to the process, but the majority of manuscripts move from one stage to the next fairly swiftly.

• Company information and news
• Scholarly publishing
• Testimonials
• Company Statements
•  Privacy Notice
• Terms & Conditions
• Modern Slavery Statement
• Equality, Diversity & Inclusion
• Anti-Bribery Statement

We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

A link to reset your password has been sent to your email.

Back to login

We need additional information from you. Please complete your profile first before placing your order.

Thank you. payment completed., you will receive an email from us to confirm your registration, please click the link in the email to activate your account., there was error during payment, orcid profile found in public registry, download history, navigating peer review: sitting and waiting – what can you do what should you do.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 17 September, 2019
• Peer Review Process

Navigating peer review: Sitting and waiting – What can you do? What should you do?

Congratulations! You’ve submitted your article to a leading international journal (hopefully with a high impact factor ) and have checked your author area within their online submission system to see that you’re now ‘awaiting reviewer scores’. Most online systems give authors the opportunity to check on the status of submissions : it’s a good idea to log in regularly to make sure that your article is moving through the peer review process . You will see little messages like ‘awaiting editorial approval’, ‘awaiting reviewer scores’, ‘awaiting editorial board comments’ and ‘decision pending’ as your article wends its way through this process. Eventually, an editor will make a decision and you will get your paper back with comments from peer reviewers .

Should you just sit, wait and do nothing as an author as this process runs its course?

No. One of the most common kinds of questions that we are asked during our paper writing and publishing workshops is along the lines of ‘I submitted a paper to a journal three months ago and I’ve heard nothing. The system still says ‘awaiting reviewer scores’. What should I do?’. Publication speed is very important to you as an author for obvious reasons: you must write to the editor if you have no news back about peer review and a reasonable amount of time has passed.

What constitutes a ‘reasonable amount of time’?

Well, the average length of time across the publishing industry from submission to online publication is three months or 90 days. We recommend writing to your journal editor if one month has passed and your paper appears ‘stuck’ in the submission system. Publishers are also interested in speed of publication, and many will use analytics to track this by journal and sometimes even by editor – so you are not the only one in this process with a vested interest!

Writing to journal editors about your paper

Authors, especially young researchers, are often nervous about writing directly to journal editors. Don’t be: this is your paper, your research, your career, and your future. [ Get in touch with our team at Charlesworth and we can provide you with short templates for writing these kinds of emails.]

Some quick tips:

- Be polite but direct when writing to a journal editor . What’s the issue that needs to be addressed?

- Make sure your email is positive: what solution are you proposing to the issue?

For example, let’s imagine that your research paper is stuck ‘awaiting reviewer comments’ and two months have passed with no news from the journal.

‘Dear Editor: I am writing on behalf of my co-authors to enquire about the status of our paper submitted on x date, entitled y’. We see that this article is ‘awaiting reviewer comments’ and more than two months have passed: we have therefore taken the opportunity to suggest the names of some additional colleagues who would be suitable peer reviewers’.

Don’t forget to include two or three additional names and email addresses at the bottom of your short message.

It’s always a good idea to write and interact directly with journal editors. As we’ve discussed before, they are very often also busy academic researchers, running their groups, supervising students, teaching and, also, managing journals. Papers get forgotten about, reviewers are not chased. You must take the initiative as an author : editors will appreciate and understand this! Don’t be pushy. Don’t be aggressive. Always be polite, constructive and offer solutions to save the editor time .

Once, in one of our author workshops , we were asked: ‘my paper has been in review with a journal for more than a year and I’ve heard nothing. What should I do?’. It’s your career. Please don’t let this happen to you!

Read next (third) in series: Navigating peer review: How to respond to peer reviewer comments – Minor revisions

Read previous (first) in series: Navigating peer review: Making your initial submission

Charlesworth Author Services , a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928. 

To know more about our services, visit: Our Services

Visit our new Researcher Education Portal that offers articles and webinars covering all aspects of your research to publication journey! And sign up for our newsletter on the Portal to stay updated on all essential researcher knowledge and information!

Register now: Researcher Education Portal

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.

Share with your colleagues

Related articles.

Managing peer review as an ECR: Learning to communicate effectively with editors

Charlesworth Author Services 26/03/2020 00:00:00

When peer review goes wrong: How to communicate with your target journal

Charlesworth Author Services 20/08/2019 00:00:00

Why some journals ask authors to suggest reviewers

Charlesworth Author Services 11/08/2016 00:00:00

Related webinars

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 11: Know when your article is ready for submission

Charlesworth Author Services 05/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication - Module 12: Understand the peer review process

Charlesworth Author Services 10/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication - Module 13: Navigate the revise and resubmit process

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication - Module 14: Increase your chances for publication

Charlesworth Author Services 20/04/2021 00:00:00

Navigating review

Navigating peer review: How to respond to peer reviewer comments – Minor revisions

Charlesworth Author Services 19/09/2019 00:00:00

Navigating peer review: How to respond to peer reviewer comments – Major revisions

Navigating peer review: How to respond to comments you disagree with in order to maximise your chances of acceptance

Charlesworth Author Services 20/09/2019 00:00:00

SCI大修返修后，awaiting reviewer assignment是什么审稿状况?

awaiting adm process 该状态是论文进入审稿阶段的第一个状态，意在等待初审编辑审稿。

awaiting reviewer invitation 是编辑已经找到审稿人并且等待审稿人接受。

如果变为了 awaiting reviewer assignment ，那就是之前邀请的审稿人拒绝审稿，编辑只能重新再找审稿人并发出邀请。

这其实不是什么奇怪的事情。之前审稿人有可能现在因为有其他的事情，没有时间来继续给你审稿。那么所以编辑只能再去邀请新的审稿人，如果之前审稿人意见很正面。那这次正常情况下，你也不必太担心。

一般来说极少说有第1轮审稿人意见和第2轮审稿人的意见，完全相左的情况出现。

正常情况下，大部分审稿人的意见。主要的趋势都是相同的，可能在侧重点上会有所不同。所以如果之前的比较正面，那么经过大修之后，一般来说可能会再有一次小修，那么接下来就是通过了。这种可能性是比较多的。

即使第2轮审稿人真的没有那么好的评价，甚至给出一些负面的评价，也没什么大不了的，要知道，决定论命运的是编辑，而不是审稿人，审稿人的意见，更多的只是给编辑进行参考。所以你还是耐心等待吧，现在已经不是你能决定的范畴了。

既然是返修重投，一般都是要发给之前的审稿人，但是，也有可能出现审稿人没时间，需要重新更换审稿人的状况。

期刊一般都是有自己的审稿人资料库的，编辑会寻找适合的审稿人询问，等待也是需要时间的，有的审稿人可能会拒绝，或者忽略掉没有回复，这样编辑就得重新再寻找新的审稿人。

应该说这个时间是不可控的，编辑也没法控制，作者要是有合适的审稿人可以推荐，但是采不采用就是编辑的事情了，一般除非是实在找不到，才有可能考虑，或者说你推荐的审稿人比较牛。

如果之前评价很正面，又根据之前的意见进行大修，你也不用太担心，耐心等待吧。

谢邀。简单来说，该步骤表明期刊编辑部正在帮你约审稿人，等待审稿专家接受你的稿件并且帮你审稿。

根据本人投稿经验，awaiting reviewer selection其实就等于with editor，还在内审，awaiting reviewer assignment相当于发送了邀请等待审稿人确认同意，同意后才是awaiting reviewer scores

审稿人也不是每天就在电脑前等着看稿件的 。所以需要主编约审稿人。返修的话，可能是和之前相同的审稿人。重投的话可能一样也可能不一样。不过返修的进度要比重新投稿的进度快很多。而且如果没有大问题，很快就会接收的！

慢慢等吧，有结果会有邮件的。希望早日看到‘’Accept‘’

谢邀，一般大修提交后是需要返回给之前审稿人判断修改质量的，不用着急，耐心等待就好；如果是小修的话，一般编辑会直接做决定的。

如果是重新投稿，文章编号更改后，那么可能需要重新走一遍全部流程。

您好，这是正在等待审稿专家同意审理您的稿件。

一般大修之后会送还给原审稿人评审。

一般修改后再投的论文会被当作新投稿件重新编号，重新评审。

只要文章认真对应编辑和审稿人的意见和建议并以此改进文章,论文大都是会被成功接收的。

你的系统应该是Scholarone系统，目前稿件还没到审稿人手里，等待分配审稿人。

有可能之前的审稿人没空了，需要找新的审稿人

等待编辑帮你找审稿人，审核你修回的稿

现在什么情况了楼主？方便说一下吗？

楼主怎么样了，我最近也遇到了类似的情况，四天了

你好，请问文章最后是否更换了审稿人呢？我也遇到了同样的情况，求助！

没关系，这种情况不用紧张，就是编辑正在将你的修稿发给审稿人。一般说来，都会是原来一审审稿人

Science News by AGU

Getting Your Paper Published Part 1: Don’t Annoy the Reviewers

Share this:.

• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

During my long experience as a journal editor ( Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology , Journal of Geophysical Research , Reviews of Geophysics ) for a total of 17 years and a paper reviewer for more than 40 years, I have seen more than my fair share of good papers and bad papers. I would like to share some of the lessons I have learned about communicating science clearly.

For AGU journals, there are text requirements and guidelines and a style guide for authors, which all submissions are expected to follow. My recommendations here go beyond these, with the goal of not only avoiding errors, but also helping you to have a smoother review process by making it as easy as possible for the reviewers. Here in Part 1, I address issues of formatting, titles and abstracts, and acronyms. In Part 2  , I cover grammar and figures.

Layout and visual ease of reading matter.

The layout and visual ease of reading matter to a reviewer. The following recommendations are simple guidelines to follow to make it easier for reviewers to read and assess your paper. Avoid annoying the reviewer, and you will get a better review.

Use 12 point type. Tiny text is hard to read. Double space the text. Many reviewers need space to insert their own comments as they read the paper. Use page numbers and line numbers (continuous for the entire paper). Many reviewers need to refer to the place in the text they are addressing.

After the reference list, use one page for each table and one for each figure. On the page with each table, include a caption above the table. On the page with each figure include a caption below the figure on the same page. Some journals request a separate list of figure captions and that you submit the figures as separate files. That’s fine, but in addition, include the figures as pages at the end of the manuscript, with a caption on the same page as the figure. It is really burdensome to have to switch back and forth between the page with the caption and the page with the figure, and this just annoys the reviewers. It may even be a subconscious effect, which will result in a harsher review of your paper.

Some submission systems, such as AGU’s GEMS system, build a manuscript by adding together all the separate figure files to the end of the text pdf. However, it is easy to tell the system not to merge those figure files with the final file that goes out for review. Even if the manuscript has figures with captions, it is annoying to have a second set of figures at the end, some of which are very large.

Just before submission, review the final file that will be sent to the reviewers. Think of reading it as if you were the reviewer, and make sure it is something that is easy to read.

Titles and Abstracts

Title and abstract are the first things a reviewer will see.

First impressions count. The title and abstract are the first things that a reviewer will see. They are more likely to decide to review a paper that starts off with a clear scientific message. Here are some simple things to avoid.

Titles need to be about the science and findings, and not about how you did the science. For example, avoid titles with “Disentangling Impacts of …” or “Analysis of …” or “Revisiting …” or “Study of …” or “On the …” or “Insights into …” or “Toward the …” or “Assessing …”.

Abstracts should not have sentences such as, “The results of the analysis are discussed” or “the impacts are studied quantitatively.” Give the actual new science, and not a description of what you will discuss in the paper. You have to explain your methods, but then tell what you found.

Many scientists are immersed in a community where terms such as SST are used so much they need not be defined. But SST can mean sea surface temperature or supersonic transport.

If I cannot understand the acronyms I usually just go on to the next paper.

I often start with the title of a paper to see whether I want to read it, and then look at the key points, but if I cannot understand the acronyms I usually just go on to the next paper. You should want to entrain the maximum number of readers, even from related fields.

So here are some simple guidelines:

• Acronyms must be defined the first time they are used and they should not be defined more than once.
• They should not be used in paper titles, abstracts, or key points (without definition).
• Acronyms should only be used if they are repeated at least twice. Never define an acronym if it will not be used later in the abstract or in the paper.
• It is a burden for readers to learn and remember the acronyms in your paper. Use as few as you can.
• Acronyms used as names for projects and models need to be defined the first time they are used, too. But if the model name is only used once or twice, then do not use the acronym at all.
• Even if you define acronyms in your abstract, they have to be defined again in the main text, as some will read the paper without reading the abstract.

On a related issue, if you are making up names and codes to refer to different data sets or different computer model runs, make up ones that are easy to understand or make sense physically, rather than arbitrary numbers or letters. For example, use Control run and 4xCO 2 run, rather than run A and run B. Similarly, all variables need to be defined the first time they are used. Variables need to be in italics and units cannot be in italics. For example, T (K) is correct and T ( K ) is not.

Read more recommendations in Part 2  about good grammar and written style, and presenting clear figures.

—Alan Robock, Editor, Reviews of Geophysics , and Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University; email: [email protected]

Robock, A. (2018), Getting your paper published part 1: don’t annoy the reviewers, Eos, 99 , https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EO105561 . Published on 18 September 2018.

Text © 2018. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Features from AGU Publications

Animals deserve to be included in global carbon cycle models, too, integrating science, art, and engagement to strengthen communities, exploring alfvén waves across space—and disciplines.

Verified Reviews - WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH

牛头人-麦麦提 2023-05-26

Stage Start Date Waiting for Associate Editor Assignment 2023-05-24 06:32:55 Editor Assigned 2023-05-24 06:32:55 Waiting for Editor Assignment 2023-05-05 14:13:45 Initial Quality Control Complete 2023-05-05 14:13:45 Initial Quality Control Started 2023-05-01 13:42:24 Author Approved Converted Files 2023-05-01 13:42:22 Preliminary Manuscript Data Submitted 2023-05-01 01:54:32 Translation: Stage Start Date Waiting for Associate Editor Assignment 2023-05-24 06:32:55 Editor Assigned 2023-05-24 06:32:55 Waiting for Editor Assignment 2023-05-05 14:13:45 Initial Quality Control Complete 2023-05-05 14:13:45 Initial Quality Control Started 2023-05-01 13:42:24 Author Approved Converted Files 2023-05-01 13:42:22 Preliminary Manuscript Data Submitted 2023-05-01 01:54:32

beyond_guo 2023-04-06

Do more than 25 Publishing Units need to pay?

huan hu an 2023-04-05

I am conducting experimental research on the sediment movement dynamics of reservoirs, and it has been quite challenging for the editor of this top hydrological journal. "Waiting for Reviewer Assignment" occurred 11 times, "Contacting Potential Reviewers" occurred 9 times, and "Under Review" occurred 4 times. Four months later, the editor mentioned that after many requests for reviews, they were able to obtain two high-quality reviews. After making minor and major revisions, I submitted the manuscript to journals such as JHE and JHR. However, the editor rejected it, stating, "Given the difficulty with identifying reviewers and the nature of the work described in the paper, it may be best to submit a manuscript that focuses more on hydraulics." Although the reviewers were not experts in my field, they still provided significant help. One helped me improve my English, while the other's misunderstanding of my work made me reflect on my writing and prompted me to make it clearer and more precise. Both the editor and reviewers were very diligent, but for those who are eager to graduate or specialize in dynamics, I would advise caution when submitting.

wanglu37 2023-02-24

22-08-04 Initial submission; 22-10-21 Received decision letter, two reviewers, one questioned the novelty and inferences of the article, one affirmed and provided many suggestions, editor encouraged resubmission; 22-11-30 Revised according to reviewer comments, submitted revised manuscript; 23-02-09 Editor found two additional reviewers, who found the results quite interesting, mainly provided some suggestions regarding the article's data and methods, editor requested minor revisions; 23-02-17 Submitted revised manuscript; 23-02-24 Article accepted.

GOPB 2023-02-15

I wrote an article about meteorology and agricultural drought, which I believe has some innovation. However, the editor rejected it, stating that it does not fit within the scope of WRR. I feel a bit frustrated. Awaiting Editor Decision 2023-02-14 21:12:41 Waiting for Associate Editor Assignment 2023-02-13 08:00:58 Editor Assigned 2023-02-13 08:00:58 Waiting for Editor Assignment 2023-02-07 14:39:54 Initial Quality Control Complete 2023-02-07 14:39:54 Initial Quality Control Started 2023-01-30 10:03:30 Author Approved Converted Files 2023-01-30 10:03:29 Preliminary Manuscript Data Submitted 2023-01-28 23:09:16

shild18 2022-11-19

The review speed of the journal is relatively fixed. If there is an external review, the average time to receive the review comments for the first time is about 3 months. This article took almost 1 year from start to finish. Below, I will mainly talk about my submission process and experience: I submitted the first version in December 2021, and then received the first round of review comments in March. After being rejected, I resubmitted, but the suggestions from the three reviewers were very helpful. They basically helped me revise the article thoroughly. After 4 months of revision, I resubmitted in July. In October, I received the second round of review comments. One of the experts in the second review was the same as before, while the other two were new. The final result was two minor revisions and one moderate revision. The editor ultimately requested a minor revision, and the changes were not too many, mainly addressing the questions raised by the three reviewers. I resubmitted in November, and the editor responded quickly, giving the acceptance decision within two days. Overall, this submission brought me great gains. The suggestions and questions from the reviewers of WRR had a significant impact, especially for someone like me who is not good at writing articles.

tfwu 2022-09-16

Comment: The first review had over 100 questions from three reviewers, and it took 47 pages just to respond to their queries. In the second review, they raised another 60-70 questions, but the editor rejected the manuscript without giving a chance for revisions. It was truly a terrible experience.

一给我里giao 2022-09-15

Posted in December of the 21st year, After undergoing one major revision and one minor revision, Accepted in September of the 22nd year. The review process was generally controlled within two months. This article took a long time mainly because the modifications involved changes in the underlying model parameters, which essentially resulted in a complete re-discussion of the method and results. The response to the major revision review comments was approximately 30,000 words and 50 pages long. Approximately 50% of the questions raised by the three reviewers may overlap, and it is possible to determine which research group the reviewers belong to based on the modification suggestions. It feels like WRR values the reliability of the method and model section more, and is relatively tolerant of the discussion section based on the results. In this field, WRR focuses more on research at the small watershed scale and emphasizes the combination of models and actual measurement data.

transmacau 2022-08-21

Why can the review speed of WRR be 8.5 points...

niels_song 2022-08-10

First review: resubmit Second review: major revision After revision, it will be accepted directly.

PubAccept 2022-07-16

Contacting Potential Reviewers: 2022-07-15 15:37:59 Waiting for Reviewer Assignment: 2022-07-15 15:31:02 Associate Editor Assigned: 2022-07-15 15:31:02

Mini-frog 2022-07-09

This journal is the flagship among the series of journals of AGU (American Geophysical Union) and also a top-tier journal in the field of hydrological resources. The journal has a small amount of space dedicated to humanities, social sciences, and economics. We submitted an article in the field of environmental economics. It took over a year from submission to acceptance, going through 4 rounds of revisions, 2 major and 2 minor. The external reviewers were quite strict, holding on to any point that did not meet their expectations, no matter how small it was. The editor-in-chief and deputy editor are very nice and respond quickly.

PubAccept 2022-07-02

Waiting for Associate Editor Assignment 2022-07-07 11:35:00 Editor Assigned 2022-07-07 11:35:00 Waiting for Editor Assignment 2022-07-06 14:17:21 Initial Quality Control Complete 2022-07-06 14:17:21 Initial Quality Control Started 2022-07-01 21:43:25 Author Approved Converted Files 2022-07-01 21:43:24 Preliminary Manuscript Data Submitted 2022-07-01 02:24:52 Translated: Waiting for Associate Editor Assignment 2022-07-07 11:35:00 Editor Assigned 2022-07-07 11:35:00 Waiting for Editor Assignment 2022-07-06 14:17:21 Initial Quality Control Complete 2022-07-06 14:17:21 Initial Quality Control Started 2022-07-01 21:43:25 Author Approved Converted Files 2022-07-01 21:43:24 Preliminary Manuscript Data Submitted 2022-07-01 02:24:52

学渣1991 2022-03-03

I have been in the same state as you for 6 days... feeling a bit speechless...

Also just submitted, it took 5 days to review the quality control.

晓之以理 2022-02-17

It's just very slow.

yang xin 2022-02-14

It has been a week since I submitted it. It has always been "Initial Quality Control Started." What's going on?

晓之以理 2022-01-29

Stuck at "Waiting for Editor Assignment" all the time, and there has been no progress for a week. Does this mean it won't be sent for review?

cugspren 2021-12-26

My paper took a total of 1 year and 2 months from submission to acceptance, going through 5 rounds of revisions. Each time, it took about 2 months to receive the revision comments. WRR is definitely a top-tier journal, there is no doubt about that, and the quality of the articles published there is certainly better than JH. Additionally, the Associate Editor (AE) at WRR is extremely responsible and has great authority. After the third review, all three reviewers agreed to accept and publish my paper, but the AE was still not satisfied and provided me with a lot of additional comments, leading to two more rounds of revisions. The AE in charge of my paper is indeed a big name in the industry, and most of the suggestions provided were indeed very good and improved the quality of the paper. However, in some aspects, it was indeed nitpicking. But this also indicates that publishing a paper in WRR is indeed challenging.

蓝蓝的爆米花 2021-12-20

The text translates to: "The manuscript was rejected, with two minor revisions and one major revision suggested by the third reviewer. After that, it was rejected by the Associate Editor, who used an unreasonable excuse to reject it. Then, the final decision was that it cannot be accepted."

Arlin 2021-12-02

By the way, based on the experience of the last time, this journal is quite strict in terms of detail review and requires a high level of rigor in argumentation. All data must be fully disclosed. Those who mind can take a detour.

Second submission, I don't know if there are too many submissions, but I feel that the processing speed of submissions has slowed down now.

有梦想的女博士 2021-10-16

First-hand experience, hoping to help you all~~ Data sharing is necessary, and also, be prepared mentally because your data has already been published, and this journal may reject your submission at any stage. The review process of this journal is painfully slow. In the first round, I submitted on February 16, 2021, received revision comments on April 21, the reviewer's comments were good, but the editor did not agree with them. However, I was given two months to make revisions, not a rejection for resubmission, but it was not specified whether it required major or minor revisions. In the second round, I submitted on June 18 and got rejected on October 15. There were three reviewers this time, and their comments were all good, one suggesting minor revisions and two agreeing to accept. However, the editor believed that I did not address his suggested modifications properly, resulting in the final rejection. It took a total of 8 months, and the efficiency was disheartening. What is puzzling is that when I resubmitted after revisions, the manuscript stayed with the editor for over 40 days. If they thought my revisions were not good, why did they send it for review? And if they sent it for review, why didn't they consider the reviewers' comments, wasting the author's time. I advise those who are eager to publish their papers to carefully consider where to submit. This journal is indeed good, but it is very difficult to get published. Finally, I wish all my fellow researchers smooth submissions and successful work.

Enlighten_qm 2021-10-09

Just want to ask the person upstairs, how is the progress of the article "Blue Popcorn"? Does "waiting for reviewer assignment" mean it has been submitted for review? Mine also changed to this status today.

I want to ask upstairs, Blue Blue Popcorn, how is your article progressing? Is "waiting for reviewer assignment" already submitted for review?

蓝蓝的爆米花 2021-07-12

I would like to inquire about the progress of your article. I also submitted one following the same process.

泡泡 2021-07-02

The person from Spain.

蓝蓝的爆米花 2021-05-16

May I ask which editor is handling your paper? Seeking guidance.

喜马拉雅的余音 2021-03-04

Editor-in-chief, associate editor, and three reviewers have all provided very professional and detailed feedback, greatly improving the paper. One of the reviewers made modifications to the paper almost word by word, providing me with writing techniques that I believe I will benefit from for a lifetime. I would like to express my gratitude to the reviewers and also to the associate editor for their language review of the paper. Here, I would like to ask the senior members, when can articles from the first issue of WRR be retrieved in Web of Science? As of March 4, 2021, the first issue still cannot be retrieved.

有梦想的女博士 2021-03-03

First submission to WRR, technical review completed the next day, and then 9 days later it showed that it was assigned to an editor; Waiting for Reviewer Assignment lasted for about 5-6 days, Days in Folder became 0 again, and now it has been 15 days since submission, and the submission status has always been Waiting for Reviewer Assignment. Have any bug friends encountered this situation? Is the probability of this situation being reviewed high?

Discover Peeref hubs

Discuss science. Find collaborators. Network.

Publish scientific posters with Peeref

Peeref publishes scientific posters from all research disciplines. Our Diamond Open Access policy means free access to content and no publication fees for authors.