Brother, I also sent an email. The system shows it as "we" and it has been two weeks already. When will it be posted online?

(0) 讚！ | ymf1998

Five years ago, it was like this, but it is definitely not the case now. The goal is to target top journals like IJRMMS, so the requirements for article quality are definitely high. Moreover, the editorial board of IJMST is domestic, and manpower is insufficient. It is not enough for the editorial team to handle thousands of articles a year like CBM. Underground Space also publishes less than 150 articles a year, which is a common problem for emerging journals in China.

(0) 讚！ | 岩石力学第一人

The submission information on this journal's website seems limited, so I will provide more details for everyone's reference.

For the initial and second review, editors generally make a decision on whether to send for review within 1 week, with the fastest being 3 days and the slowest being 7 days.

This journal does not seem to have a DIP. After the initial and second review, feedback is provided directly after RRC, and upon acceptance, the system status changes to "With editor." A few days later, an email notification of acceptance is sent, and then the system status changes to "Accept."

Difficulty of submission: Close to IJRMMS, greater than RMRE, JRMGE, and TUST (double-blind with more invited reviewers, addressing more comprehensive and professional reviewer comments).
Article quality: Lower than IJRMMS, slightly stronger than RMRE and JRMGE, greater than TUST.

This journal does not appreciate superficial articles, even if the content is comprehensive and well-structured. Instead, it prefers new discoveries with universal significance (not just rearrangements of materials and methods), novel characterization methods filling gaps, and possessing genuine engineering value. AI-related submissions must have mechanistic significance, otherwise they will be desk rejected.

(0) 讚！ | 岩石力学第一人

The journal is really good. Five reviewers were invited for the first round, and four accepted the review and provided very professional opinions, which greatly improved the rigor and scientific quality of the article (a total of 32 opinions from the four reviewers). Especially reviewer 1, who is clearly an expert in the field, provided 16 detailed and harsh opinions!

Finally, the article was successfully accepted. The editors also kindly pointed out the deficiencies in the images and helped to polish the wording. It can be said that this domestic journal in the fields of mining, rocks, and geological hazards is the best!

Here is the submission timeline:
- May 1, 2026: Submission
- May 7, 2026: Sent for review (all four reviewers agreed to review within about a week)
- May 29, 2026: Reject and resubmit (RRC)
- June 10, 2026: All four reviewers returned with their opinions
- June 15, 2026: No major revisions required, revise and resubmit directly

- July 24, 2026: Returned with revisions, sent for review the same day
- August 10, 2026: Reject and resubmit (RRC)
- August 19, 2026: Reject and resubmit (RRC) (all four reviewers returned with their opinions)
- August 21, 2026: Minor revisions

- August 24, 2026: Second round of revisions submitted, under review the same day
- August 26, 2026: Only one reviewer accepted the review
- September 1, 2026: Returned with revisions, accepted the same day!

(0) 讚！ | 岩石力学第一人

Brother, any results yet?

(0) 讚！ | 风起烬明

Brothers, is it normal for this state to continue for 11 days? The progress of the Elsevier manuscript has been showing an invitation to 2 reviewers, with 0 accepting the review. Or is the information displayed by Elsevier inaccurate?

(1) 讚！ | LUV.11

Brothers, is it normal for this status to have lasted for 11 days? The Elsevier manuscript progress inquiry has been showing an invitation to 2 reviewers, with 0 accepting the review. Or is the information displayed by Elsevier inaccurate?

(0) 讚！ | LUV.11

May I ask if there will be any fees after being hired?

(0) 讚！ | 中SCI

Hello everyone, in this journal, the first reviewer has disappeared and the second reviewer has been non-responsive. Should the editor make a decision directly or invite new reviewers for a reevaluation?

(0) 讚！ | 2222222222222

July 28th Dip.

(0) 讚！ | ccc

July 26 RRC

(0) 讚！ | ccc

Does it mean that we have been rejected if this magazine has not responded to us for almost 2 months without any movement?

(0) 讚！ | ljl123qaq

Please translate the following paragraph into English: July 2 Dip

(0) 讚！ | 灿若星辰

How are you doing?

(0) 讚！ | ccc

In case of direct AC.

(0) 讚！ | ccc

Yes, I checked the rrc yesterday, and two of them have already been reviewed. It was so fast, most likely because they actively participated.

(0) 讚！ | 灿若星辰

I'm also very fast like you. How is the draft coming along now?

(0) 讚！ | 灿若星辰

I started before you and I am still in UR.

(0) 讚！ | ccc

Did you finish Rrc?

(0) 讚！ | ccc

I don't know, but the review process seems to be quite fast. I feel like it's probably been rejected.

(0) 讚！ | 灿若星辰

June 29, four reviewers from the RRC have already completed two reviews.

(0) 讚！ | 灿若星辰

How come it has been such a long time?

(0) 讚！ | ccc

Is it normal for RRC to be 20 days after rework?

(0) 讚！ | edhod

Please translate the following paragraph into English: June 26 UR

(0) 讚！ | 灿若星辰

A little over a month, not quite two months.

(0) 讚！ | icee1234