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...

学渣1991 2022-03-03

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.

Arlin 2021-12-02

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.

Enlighten_qm 2021-10-09

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?