ikakaluote 2022-05-08

After "Under review," it was updated to "Decision in Process" on April 22nd. It has been half a month already, and I don't know what the situation is.

Acc 2022-04-28

I am also rejected after major revisions. Two out of three reviewers agreed, but one disagreed and directly rejected it.

Acc 2022-04-28

Posted on December 16, 2021
Reviewer's comments returned on February 26, 2022
Modified manuscript submitted on March 22, 2022
On April 26, 2022, one reviewer disagreed and rejected the submission
Note: Initially, it would have been better to reject the submission directly when considering returning modification comments, but after messing around for a while, it was eventually rejected. Really...

像个战神一样 2022-04-16

4.12 submitted
4.17 with editor
4.20 under review

Translation:

4.12 submitted
4.17 with editor
4.20 under review

wenting_zhu628 2022-04-15

I previously submitted to the Journal of Constructional Steel Research. The comments from the first reviewer were very positive, saying it was interesting. One reviewer asked me to add something for quantitative analysis. After I added it and resubmitted, another reviewer disagreed and said it was not suitable for this journal. The editor rejected it. It took more than four months. If it wasn't suitable, why didn't they reject it from the beginning? I also suspect that they may have found a new reviewer just to reject my paper. Originally, I wanted to see this journal, but based on what you said, I give up. I can't afford to waste any more time.

zhaojun19950528 2022-04-03

It has been a month since the first review, and there has been no response.

Cage Sun 2022-03-15

May I ask which magazine you later subscribed to?

yan1234567 2022-03-13

Be cautious when investing in theoretical and numerical simulations. It is undeniable that the impact factor of ES is currently very high, and there are also many high-quality papers. However, some editors responsible for the Asia-Pacific region are truly speechless. Some papers have been rejected after minor revisions, some have received positive comments in the first round of review, but then the second round of editing has brought in new reviewers to reject the paper. If you want to reject it, just reject it from the beginning. It is unfair to drag it on for over half a year and suddenly reject it without any specific reasons. Do you know how much this can harm the authors? Goodbye forever!

秃头骚年 2022-03-04

02.25, 2022 required reviews completed
03.01, 2022 decision in process
03.03, 2022 reject

a1012335896 2022-03-04

Posted in July 2020, it was submitted for review a little over half a month later. It was rejected on the day before National Day. It was sent to a domestic doctoral reviewer specializing in mechanics. There was only one reviewer, a young and energetic individual who provided feedback in an eight-page Word document (half of which was a copy of the original text, and the other half were comments). The reviewer acknowledged the research findings but heavily criticized the writing of the paper, stating that they did not understand many parts and recommended a major revision or resubmission. The editor-in-chief directly rejected it. Three months later, after making significant revisions and adding new content, it was resubmitted. However, the editor-in-chief rejected it again, stating that the changes were not significant and requested a response to the previous reviewer's questions (which were mainly unanswered in the resubmission and there was no time to address them). They offered one last chance but advised us to be cautious, as it would still be sent to the same reviewer. Therefore, we decisively submitted it to another journal and it was accepted after minor revisions. Both reviewers highly praised the writing of the paper. It can only be said that luck is also important.

温柔小面包 2022-02-24

2021.10.09 To journal - Submitted to journal
2021.10.11 With editor - Under the editor's review
2021.10.12 Under review - Under peer review
2021.11.10 Required reviews completed - Peer reviews completed
2021.11.15 Process in decision - Decision-making process underway
2021.11.22 重新 Under review - Under review again
2021.12.20 直接给修改意见 ：major revise. 三个专家意见：两个同意修改后录用，一个需要回答一个关键问题。- Directly provided revision suggestions: major revisions. Opinions from three experts: two agree to accept after revisions, one requires addressing a key question.
2021.1.09 提交 Revised manuscript - Submitted revised manuscript
2022.1.21 直接 Accept - Accepted directly
从投稿到录用总共用了3个多月，其实能更快，大概2个多月就可以，因为问题的回答在收到修改意见的第2天就已经完成，反复检查，拖了21天才提交，否则速度会提高到2个月零20天。- It took a total of over 3 months from submission to acceptance, but it could have been faster, probably around 2 months, as the response to the questions was completed on the second day of receiving the revision suggestions. Due to repeated checks, it took an additional 21 days to submit, otherwise the speed would have been reduced to 2 months and 20 days.

秃头骚年 2022-02-21

12.30, 2021 under review - This means that as of December 30, 2021, something is being evaluated or examined.
01.20, 2022 under review - This indicates that as of January 20, 2022, something is still being evaluated or examined.

zisefengling 2022-01-20

Did the first-round email explicitly state "major revise"? In my comments, I wrote "substantial revision and modification." I am worried that after making the changes, it will still be rejected...

xunxun 2022-01-19

I have not yet received the review comments.

nickname 2022-01-15

2022/01/13 Completed-reject

nickname 2022-01-12

2021.12.30 with editor (Second round)
2022.01.07 Decision in process

秃头骚年 2022-01-12

Hello, I would like to ask if you have any editorial comments yet.

nickname 2021-12-28

12.14 avec l'éditeur - 12.14 with the editor

秃头骚年 2021-12-19

11.16, 2021 - Submitted to journal
11.19, 2021 - Under review with editor
12.08, 2021 - Under review

nickname 2021-12-18

12.18 submitted to journal
Later updates

xunxun 2021-12-10

11.20 submitted to journal
11.25 with editor
11.27 with editor (updated once)
12.09 under review
Continuously updating, hoping for acceptance!

樱桃九熟 2021-12-07

12.6 with editor

樱桃九熟 2021-12-06

12.3 submitted to journal
Follow-up updates

Indigo 2021-11-04

2021.7.14 Submit to journal
2021.7.17 With editor
2021.7.29 Under review
2021.8.18 Required Reviews Completed
2021.9.1 Decision in Process
2021.9.3 Revise (Major Revise)
2021.9.30 Approve Revision, With editor
2021.10.3 Under Review
2021.10.22 Required Reviews Completed
2021.10.23 Revise (Minor Revis)
2021.11.1 Approve Revision, With editor
2021.11.2 Under Review
2021.11.3 Accept

There were a total of four reviewers, and after addressing over 30 questions raised during the first review, two reviewers agreed directly. The other two reviewers raised three additional questions, which were addressed and agreed upon directly. The journal overall had a fast processing speed, and I will choose this journal in the future~

蔡小帅 2021-08-23

3.9 Submission, 3.11 With editor, 3.28 Under Review
5.06 Major Revision, 6.23 R1 submitted,
6.24 Under review, 7.31 Reject
In the first round, there were 5 reviewers. After revisions, 4 agreed, and 1 requested further modifications.
The editor sought a 6th reviewer, who disagreed with publication, resulting in rejection.
The last reviewer primarily felt that the article's logic was poorly organized. It is possible that the added content in the revised article was not logically consistent with the original manuscript.
Overall, the submission was good, and the process was fast. Most of the reviewers' feedback was objective.
Let's strive for better next time~

简单 simple 2021-08-10

2021.4.11 submitted
2021.5.18 under review (It took over a month from submission to being under review, and the time with the editor was relatively long)
2021.6.15 required reviews completed (This status lasted for two weeks)
2021.6.28 decision in process
2021.7.1 need revise (There were two reviewers, and both gave very positive evaluations with over 30 minor revision suggestions)
2021.7.11 revised submitted (The revised manuscript was submitted within 10 days)
2021.7.12 under review (It entered the second round of review the next day)
2021.7.31 required reviews completed
2021.8.7 accept (Both reviewers indicated satisfaction with the response and no third round of review was needed. Thank you very much!)
The process of the first manuscript in the ES journal went smoothly, taking only 4 months from submission to acceptance, which is considered quite fast. However, some colleagues had a more difficult time and may require a third round of review. Overall, ES is recognized within the industry and has been promoted to a top-tier journal, offering great value for money.

jjjjjjjjjjjj 2021-08-09

2020.12.8 Submission
2021.1.31 First review completed
2.18 First reply
5.8 Second review completed
6.2 Second reply
6.28 Third review completed
7.12 Third reply
8.8 Accepted

蔡小帅 2021-07-27

What was the result in the end?

石多多 2021-06-27

2021.01.24 Submitted Manuscript to Journal
2021.01.27 With Editor
2021.02.09 Under Review
2021.03.12 Need to Revise 1 - Major Revision, reviewed by 5 reviewers with a total of 31 comments; wrote a 7350-word English response.
2021.04.25 Resubmitted the revised manuscript.
2021.04.28 With Editor
2021.04.29 Under Review
2021.05.28 Need to Revise 2 - Minor Revision, one small comment that is very positive; wrote an approximately 1000-word English response.
2021.06.05 Resubmitted the revised manuscript.
2021.06.08 With Editor
2021.06.12 Under Review
2021.06.27 Accept

无法成为野兽的我 2021-05-24

ES is still a prestigious journal in the field of civil engineering. The review process is relatively fast, and the publication volume is high. The acceptance difficulty is not particularly high. Overall, compared to some journals of ASCE, it has a high cost-effectiveness. I submitted a long article at the end of last year and received the acceptance notification the day before yesterday. The general process is as follows:
December 27, 2020: Submission, approximately 2 weeks later sent for review.
April 3, 2021: Received comments from the first reviewer, two reviewers, not many issues, relatively positive about the paper's work. The editor requested minor revisions.
However, on April 7, 2021, the editor suddenly sent another email, saying that the comments from the third reviewer came back, asking us to include our response to this person in the revised manuscript. The comments from the third reviewer were more negative and critical, which annoyed me at the time, but my advisor still diligently revised the response to the comments.
May 4, 2021: Submitted the revised manuscript and response to the comments. 4 days later, sent for review again, and completed the review one week later.
May 22, 2021: Received the acceptance notification. The first two reviewers in the email stated that the issues were satisfactorily addressed and answered, without any comments from the third reviewer.