WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH

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.

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.