广西郭富城 2023-08-05

Aug 01, 2023 Submission
Aug 04, 2023 Under Review
Wishing for good luck
(PS: Remember to read the submission guidelines. Sharing data is now necessary! Discussing and results should be written separately!)

Mariafivelord 2022-10-13

Do GCA need to submit the raw data?

林宇艾 2022-08-25

The flagship magazine of geochemistry places great emphasis on professional expertise, requiring detailed and in-depth discussions. The submission period is relatively long, usually giving reviewers at least 2 months per round. The editing process is rigorous, and it may undergo more than 3 rounds of review, with a total time of possibly over one year.

风入松 2021-11-06

The article was originally intended to be submitted to Lithos, but the external editor suggested it would be more suitable for GCA. Even though two reviewers thought it was good, the third reviewer felt that many issues were unresolved and provided me with over 60 suggestions! Therefore, the Associate Editor (Rosemary Hickey-Vargas, the editor-in-chief of EPSL) encouraged me to revise and resubmit. It took me half a year to intermittently revise the article and respond to the suggestions, totaling 12,000 words. I am truly grateful to some reviewers who not only provided suggestions but also offered further modification advice at the same time! After resubmission, the Associate Editor finally accepted the article with minor revisions.

First rejection:
2020.08.20: Submitted to journal
08.25: With editor
09.11: Under review
10.16: Required Reviews Completed
11.04: Reject

Resubmission - Accepted with minor revisions:
2021.05.25: Submitted to Journal
06.01: With Editor
06.22: Under Review
08.31: Decision in Process
08.31: Minor Revisions
10.13: Revision Submitted to Journal
10.19: With Editor
10.27: Accept

Kaj 2021-01-22

This article has produced something that I personally feel is quite valuable. Because I urgently needed to use this article, I submitted it to Chemical Geology in early April 2020, hoping for a quick response. However, it took over two months for the editor to assign it. Later, I sent an email to inquire about the status and was rejected by the editor-in-chief, citing that it was not suitable for the readership of CG. I then resubmitted it to GCA on June 24, 2020, and received the review comments on September 13, which stated "revise and reconsider". I wrote a response to the comments, totaling 16,000 words. It was returned on November 18, and on January 6, 2021, I received an email stating "revise and accept". The reviewers believed that the revisions were well done, and the associate editor (Ralf Halama) made two suggestions and asked for language improvements. On January 18, it was returned again, and this morning I received an email from the editor accepting it. I have to say that both the associate editor and the three reviewers were very professional, and I feel that they have greatly contributed to my improvement. Additionally, the AE of this article, Ralf Halama, was extremely nice and even helped me with some language-related issues.