The third round (acceptance - no external review)

(0) 讚！ | holyke

Second Round (Minor Revision - 1 Minor Revision 2 Acceptance):
Waiting for Revision
Decision Made; Email Confirmation Sent
Awaiting Editor Decision
Awaiting AE Recommendation
Under Review
Contacting Potential Reviewers
Waiting for Reviewer Assignment
Associate Editor Assigned
Waiting for AE Assignment
Awaiting Editor Decision
Editor Assigned
Waiting for Editor Assignment
Initial Quality Control Complete
Initial Quality Control Started
Editor Assigned
Author Approved Converted Files
Preliminary Manuscript Data Submitted

(0) 讚！ | holyke

Submission to acceptance took over a year, a torturous process. The detailed status is as follows for reference:

First Round (Major Revision - 2 reviewers, 2 major revisions):
- Waiting for Revision
- Decision Made; Email Confirmation Sent
- Awaiting Editor Decision
- Awaiting Associate Editor Recommendation
- Under Review
- Contacting Potential Reviewers
- Waiting for Reviewer Assignment
- Associate Editor Assigned
- Waiting for Associate Editor Assignment
- Editor Assigned
- Waiting for Editor Assignment
- Initial Quality Control Complete
- Initial Quality Control Started
- Author Approved Converted Files
- Preliminary Manuscript Data Submitted

(0) 讚！ | holyke

The experiences were almost identical. In the first round of submission, two reviewers provided minor revisions, and the Associate Editor requested changing the manuscript from a research article to a method paper and raised questions about the basic assumptions of the model. In the second round of submission, the manuscript was revised according to the Associate Editor's request, the questions were addressed, but the Associate Editor was not fully satisfied with the response. In the third round of submission, the same situation occurred, the manuscript was not sent for review and was rejected.

(0) 讚！ | o小太阳o

Are the two reviewers after resubmission the same as the previous reviewers? Please share.

(0) 讚！ | o小太阳o

Contacting Potential Reviewers

(0) 讚！ | o小太阳o

No, two reviewers are enough for the AE to make a decision, it is common to only have two reviewers.

(0) 讚！ | o小太阳o

Waiting for Associate Editor Assignment 2025-08-21 06:20:55
Editor Assigned 2025-08-21 06:20:55

(0) 讚！ | 老天让我别无敌

First trial took four months, resulting in two opinions: one major revision and one minor revision. After submitting the revised manuscript, it showed two statuses of "under review," which is presumed to be the original two reviewers. Throughout this period, the status remained "Waiting for Reviewer Assignment," and then changed to "Contacting Potential Reviewers." Could it be that new reviewers are being invited again? Is it necessary to have three reviewers for WRR? Does anyone know?

(1) 讚！ | 有梦不苦

Waiting for Editor Assignment 8.13
Initial Quality Control Complete 8.13
Initial Quality Control Started 8.10
Author Approved Converted Files 8.10
Waiting for Author Approval of Converted Files 8.8
Initial Quality Control Started 8.1
Author Approved Converted Files 8.1
Preliminary Manuscript Data Submitted 8.1

(0) 讚！ | Ke Ma

It has been 40 days in the status of Waiting for Reviewer Assignment, is this reasonable? What is the next stage?

(0) 讚！ | aya-kk

Is OA necessary, and does it cost money?

(0) 讚！ | hln123

Both WRR and JH have been published, and from the perspective of individuals and their circles, the difficulty and recognition of WRR are significantly higher than JH. Generally speaking, WRR requires a high level of rigor in innovation and research methods, and tends to focus more on exploring breakthroughs in basic and cutting-edge theories; JH, on the other hand, leans more towards application, with many articles lacking innovation, giving a feeling of a case study.

P.S.: One more small difference to add, if the experimental design is good (whether indoor or outdoor), but the research methods and conclusions are conventional, it is possible to be published in JH; however, relying solely on experiments without sufficient methodological and cognitive innovation, it is almost impossible to be published in WRR.

(0) 讚！ | 柳贯一

Another way to put it is that the top three journals in hydrology are WRR, AWR, and JoH. I've asked a few experts in the field (mostly in groundwater), and generally, AWR is more recognized than JoH.

(0) 讚！ | Hydro-Man

I have not submitted to HESS, but I have submitted to JOH WRR. Whether it is the depth of questions from reviewers or the innovation and interest of the published articles, it supports that WRR is one level higher than JOH. If JOH is equivalent to the College English Test Band 6, then WRR can be compared to a professional Band 4. However, the overall review cycle of AGU is much longer than that of Elsevier, and in terms of cost-effectiveness, JOH is better, especially when WRR has been downgraded to a second-tier journal. In the early stages of research, submit more to JOH, and later pursue quality by trying WRR, GRL, and sub-journals.

(0) 讚！ | sososo121

There are many papers on JoH that make me feel like "this can be published on JoH". From my personal experience, JoH is more inclined towards application, and reviewers sometimes do not understand the content of the papers; WRR values theoretical innovation more, and reviewers are generally more professional, providing very insightful feedback. In my personal experience, papers rejected by WRR were accepted for publication on JoH. In terms of impact, HESS is not as influential as JoH and WRR, so I have never thought about submitting to HESS.

(1) 讚！ | Hydro-Man

hess and jh also warned, right?

(0) 讚！ | ny1209

The three major journals in the field of hydrology (WRR, HESS, JH) have all been published, and it is not felt that WRR is significantly better than the other two, at most it is slightly better. On XHS, there are often people saying that WRR and JH are not in the same league, perhaps not understanding what "league" means.

(0) 讚！ | ny1209

WRR is a top global academic journal in the field of hydrology and water resources published by the American Geophysical Union (AGU), founded in 1965. It covers research directions such as hydrological cycle, surface water/groundwater dynamics, water quality models, hydro-meteorology, and water resources management, focusing on innovative research on hydrological processes mechanisms and sustainable water resource solutions, known for its interdisciplinary innovation and high impact.

WRR is classified as a second-tier journal in the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) zone table = The CAS zone table has lost its authority in the field of hydrology = Hydrology discipline warning zone table: "CAS zone table"

(0) 讚！ | wangxuan

Do we have to pay for submissions now, comrades?

(0) 讚！ | kevin99

Haha, it must be because I always reject him that I was demoted to the second district.

(0) 讚！ | Hydro-Man

Comrades, it seems that WRR has been downgraded to second-tier in the Chinese Academy of Sciences this year.

(0) 讚！ | mary712

Although the result is good, it took 5 months from submission to the first review, and a total of 1 and a half years, which is really slow.

(0) 讚！ | sososo121

My first submission was rejected, and the editor asked for revisions before resubmission. Starting from February 6, 2025, I am waiting for Editor Assignment. Looking forward to a positive outcome.

(0) 讚！ | zephyr1

I submitted two articles at the same time, one was reviewed quickly while the other one has been delayed for over 20 days without being sent for review.

(0) 讚！ | Zhagn