International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Journal Title
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health


1661-7827 / 1660-4601
Aims and Scope
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH) (ISSN 1660-4601) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original articles, critical reviews, research notes, and short communications in the interdisciplinary area of environmental health sciences and public health. It links several scientific disciplines including biology, biochemistry, biotechnology, cellular and molecular biology, chemistry, computer science, ecology, engineering, epidemiology, genetics, immunology, microbiology, oncology, pathology, pharmacology, and toxicology, in an integrated fashion, to address critical issues related to environmental quality and public health. Therefore, IJERPH focuses on the publication of scientific and technical information on the impacts of natural phenomena and anthropogenic factors on the quality of our environment, the interrelationships between environmental health and the quality of life, as well as the socio-cultural, political, economic, and legal considerations related to environmental stewardship and public health.

The 2018 IJERPH Outstanding Reviewer Award has been launched! This award acknowledge those who have generously dedicated their time to review manuscripts submitted to IJERPH. See full details at
Subject Area


5.40 View Trend
CiteScore Ranking
Category Quartile Rank
Medicine - Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health Q1 #128/577
Medicine - Pollution Q2 #58/159
Medicine - Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis Q2 #49/133
Web of Science Core Collection
Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)
- -
Country/Area of Publication
MDPI (Basel, Switzerland)
Year Publication Started
Annual Article Volume
Open Access
Verified Reviews
Note: Verified reviews are sourced from across review platforms and social media globally.
11.28 Submission
12.11 Major revision with three reviewers. One reviewer gave a major revision with 1 "yes" and 5 "can" responses, with sharp questions, questioning the validity of the experiment and requesting additional experiments. The following two revisions were mostly "yes."
12.16 Revisions were made because the experiments were conducted before but were not included in the manuscript due to space constraints. Other parts were also significantly revised. The entire revision process was quite anxious.
12.21 Received a reply email accepting the paper after minor revisions. This time, some grammar errors in the images and text were corrected, which was relatively simple. It was revised and returned on the same day.
There were some minor complications in between (adding new authors), which caused a delay in processing. The journal editor rejected the request to modify the authors, citing MDPI's emphasis on the originality and accuracy of the authors.
12.26 Confirmed the accuracy of the funding information.
12.27 Confirmed the authors' names and emails, and made final modifications to figure captions, symbols, reference formatting, etc.
12.28 Final check.
Overall, this submission went very smoothly, taking only a month from submission to acceptance. The journal is in the WOS1 zone with a moderate impact factor. Additionally, my advisor had a coupon to waive the publication fee, greatly increasing the cost-effectiveness of the journal.
However, if I had to bear the 2500 CHF fee myself, I probably would not have chosen this journal.
Background: I started my second year of graduate school. My thesis was poorly written, but my senior brother successfully submitted an article and recommended me to the editor and my teacher, so it happened to be assigned to me.

Invitation: The teacher informed me that the deadline was the 20th, but I only submitted it on July 22nd.

Review: It was sent within two or three days.

Reviewer's response: The fastest response was on July 29th, and the slowest was on August 6th (on August 10th, the teacher informed me that I needed to make revisions and gave me ten days). The first two reviewers provided comprehensive feedback, requesting that my article be well-rounded. The third reviewer provided thirty comments on grammar and formatting issues. Submitted on August 19th.

Second review: Reviewers 1 and 3 provided approval for publication within two to three days.

Editor's decision: It should be made two days later.

Afterwards, there were final adjustments such as image pixelation, with a 24-hour deadline.

Publication: August 28th.

Slightly over a month, it was fast.

Become a Peeref-certified reviewer

The Peeref Institute provides free reviewer training that teaches the core competencies of the academic peer review process.

Get Started

Ask a Question. Answer a Question.

Quickly pose questions to the entire community. Debate answers and get clarity on the most important issues facing researchers.

Get Started