nur 2023-07-02

Hello? May I ask if all your articles are related to the formation of rocks? My articles on ore deposits have been rejected without review for the past two years, with the reason being that they do not want articles on ore deposits.

nur 2023-07-02

Hello? May I ask, are all your articles about the origin of rocks? My articles on mineral deposits have been rejected without review for the past two years, with the reason being that they do not want articles on mineral deposits.

美国政府将 2023-06-10

Translated text: I have submitted two articles. The first article was sent for review for 1 week, and it took 3 months to receive feedback. After making minor revisions, it was accepted a month later. The second article was quickly put under review after submission, and feedback was received after 2 months. It required major revisions, which were completed and resubmitted within 1 week. After 2 weeks, minor revisions were requested, and it was accepted immediately after making the changes. Reviewing difficulty for Lithos is lower compared to CMP and JP, and the process is faster.

青春 2023-02-21

Now it's just the opposite, any thoughts?

美国政府将 2023-01-12

The previously submitted Geology application was rejected, so I made some revisions and submitted it to Lithos. After 3 months, I received feedback, with minor revisions suggested in the first review. After making the necessary changes, it was accepted.

nur 2022-11-10

May I ask how long you have been waiting for the submission to the Journal? It has been a week for me, and there has been no change.

Moresea 2022-09-06

A very proactive journal. Submitted in April and underwent major revisions in May. The opinions from all three reviewers were very professional, greatly improving the manuscript, and it was finally accepted in July. In terms of professional competence, it is one of the mainstream journals in the field of petrology. Unfortunately, perhaps due to the increasing number of Chinese researchers, its influence is declining. I hope it can become better and better.

固执的鱼 2022-07-07

Extremely efficient, even if rejected, the editor still provides positive feedback.

zylu 2021-09-10

Posted on May 9th.
On June 17th, the editorial department returned with comments. There were two reviewers, the first reviewer raised over ten questions, and the second reviewer had four questions. However, it was difficult to answer them, suspecting issues with the accuracy of our experiments. The editor provided major revisions objectively and gave us two months for the initial modifications.
On July 15th, we returned the first modified draft after carefully replying to and modifying each reviewer's questions upon receiving the notice for revisions. It took us a month.
On August 26th, the editorial department returned with comments. The first reviewer was satisfied with our responses and agreed to publish. However, the second reviewer still expressed dissatisfaction with the process of accuracy calculation. The editor provided appropriate modifications.
On September 1st, after a week of modifications, we provided detailed supplements to the accuracy calculation process in the paper and returned the second modified draft.
On September 9th, it was accepted.
Overall, the editor's handling speed was quite fast and not delayed. The reviewers' suggestions for our paper greatly helped improve it. Each review cycle took about a month and a half.

hxufly 2021-05-06

Rejected by gsab, changed to mainstream lithos, hoping for a good outcome. (After being rejected by gsab's editor-in-chief, he recommended lithos, I feel a little bit... not good, I don't know what to say, laughing and crying, bitter-sweet jpg)

amwbj1990 2021-05-06

2020.9.28 Submission
2020.11.4 Received review comments, one minor revision, one rejection, editor suggested major revision
2021.1.4 Responded seriously to the review comments and resubmitted
2021.2.14 Received second round of review comments, one acceptance, one rejection, editor suggested major revision
2021.4.14 Modified according to the first review comments, partially ignored the second comments, partially responded, partially disagreed
2021.4.27 Accepted
The second reviewer should have different views from ours, but the review comments were mixed with too much emotional sentiment. I was furious after reading the comments, so in the second round, I directly confronted the reviewer and complained to the editor why they didn't seek arbitration. As long as we have solid evidence, there is nothing to fear.