It took more than five months from the initial submission to acceptance, with two modifications in between. The first modification was to meet the editor's formatting requirements, and the second modification was a major revision based on the reviewer's comments. After making the necessary modifications as per the reviewer's suggestions, the paper was directly accepted for publication.

This journal is very approachable and does not judge authors based on their reputation or address. As long as your writing meets the standards, and you patiently wait, it is certain to be accepted. I hope it continues to improve and achieves an impact factor of over 5.

(2) 讚！ | 大娃娃

Sorry, it should be under review.

(0) 讚！ | 醋醋西瓜

May I ask how long it takes for an article to be under review after submission? I have been waiting for more than ten days and it has been stuck at "Editor Assigned". I emailed the editor and received a reply saying they are only inviting reviewers. Does this mean it's still going to be slow?

(0) 讚！ | 醋醋西瓜

The manuscript was submitted at the end of August 2019, and the first review decision of major revision returned at the end of October. The mainly revision was to check the format according to journal requirements. There were too many figures and tables. According to the rule of 300 words per figure/table, the number of words exceeded, and the content of the article was also mentioned. After returning the opinion in November, it was accepted in early March 2020. It lasted a total of six months. I think that the speed in this journal is as same as that of a none open access journal. The first review comments were received within 3 months and it was accepted in about half a year. During the process, the comment was as following. It should be clear that papers of a size which exceeds 8000 words (including text, references, figs and tables), cannot be processed further for publication. Each figure/table is counted for 300 words. Please check that no more than 10–15% of the references are from the same journal and no more than three references are from the same author.

(5) 讚！ | 带梦飞

Good guys, it was submitted in late January of 2018, and it has been reviewers invited until now in late May of 2019. I had sent several emails to the editor-in-chief from last year to this year. They only replied once when I sent the email for the last time this year, saying that they would ask about the situation. As a result, there is still no change. I wonder if this journal is still alive. I have thought about retracting the manuscript, but I have been waiting for so long, and I hope there will be results, but there has been no news. I’m so tired. I also admire myself that I can wait so long.

(2) 讚！ | 没有昵称怎么办

Submitted on June 1, 2018; review opinions received on September 27, 2018. But due to personal reasons, we did not open the mailbox until November 3. The editor-in-chief required a major revision, and at the same time improved the language; 2 reviewers gave their opinions, which were very pertinent and not too harsh. One of the experts revised the grammar and preposition errors in the original text word by word, which was very touched! Revised submission on November 26, 2018. Then it was sent for external review one week later; on January 23, 2019, the external review completed, and a minor revision was required by the editor-in-chief on February 3. Only a few prepositions needed to be revised. Revisions returned on February 7; accepted on February 17th; online on February 27th.

(2) 讚！ | hkw

Paper was sent to two reviewers for review. One is very positive, and the other did not review the paper. The editor finally just decided to reject the paper for no clear reasons.

(0) 讚！ | aiguozhe2

3 Submitted at the end of the month, received review comments at the beginning of June, two reviewers, overhauled, repaired back at the end of July, received the second review comments at the end of August, minor repairs, repaired back,Accepted in early October, online after a few days, is expected to see the journal in January and February next year.Need to be reminded that this journal is not allowed to increase or decrease the author when the manuscript is revised, so please add the authors to be added in the first draft. I will add it when I don’t add other authors to save the manuscript.I can't add an author because it took more than a month to accept it.

(0) 讚！ | Anonymous

Attach the length requirement for the reference of the person to select:"It should be clear that papers of a size which exceeds 8000 words (including text, references, figs and tables), cannot be further processed for publication. Each fig/table is counted for 300 words.Please check that no more than 10 – 15 % of the references are from the same journal and no more than three references are from the same author.Finally, avoid parts of text which have been published previously in other papers of yours. ..

(4) 讚！ | EP

an article on urban runoff, submitted to receive for six months.Except for the majority of the month, I used to reply to Review. It was one and a half months spent in the editor.From the time of submission to the review, from receiving the reviewer comments to receiving each two weeks.I did not see the word count before submitting the manuscript. When the review comments came back, the number of words was attached to the letter (8000 words, including chart documents! One picture, table according to 300 words).So I need to greatly reduce the length of the article.It’s quite boring.Others are fine, and the journal is not bad.

(1) 讚！ | EP

6 In the past, after the editor, I have been in the state of Reviewers invited until the end of January of the following year..It was really depressed during this period...In the end, I wanted to retract the manuscript, but, after finally, I reviewed the reviewer. The reviewer used two reviewers recommended by me, so I accepted it..Accepted the next day after the minor repair, and online after one week...As for publish, I don't know. It is estimated that this year I can see the journal

(0) 讚！ | happy

Editors and reviewers are still more serious, and have been carefully modified to be acceptd.

(0) 讚！ | luowan@yzu.edu.cn

This journal has a bad reputation. In order to increase the impact factor, the self-citation rate is very high. It is explicitly required that the author quote many articles in this journal for nearly two years, and it is very popular in the industry.Many people's contempt

(3) 讚！ | 匿名

Submitted on September 7; after about a week the status showed editor assigned; by September 25 it showed under review, but later the status data became October 5 even though the status was still under review. I hope this means I will be given the opportunity to revise the paper. Update: received review comments on November 23, major revision, but the comments from the two reviewers are not harsh so should be easy to answer. Update again: submitted a revised manuscript on December 26, and then the status showed editor assigned the next day. I received the email of acceptance for publication on January 2.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

Impact factor growth soon. The European Water Conservancy Society journal, one of the articles, review time is about 8 months, minor repairAfter accepting, one of the journals with good water resources, but it should not be considered top.When editing, the editor said that it is necessary to add an article that references the journal in recent years, which may be the reason for its impact factor soaring

(1) 讚！ | 匿名