I have a kind of yearning for this kind of journal, and finally dare to have a try. I hope for good luck.

(11) Thank | Zou-Yu

It was rejected 3 days later. Unfortunately, it does not appear to be of enough general interest to be suitable for our journal, and accordingly I have decided to reject it without sending it out for review. We receive many more submissions than we can accept. I wish you luck in finding a suitable venue for your work.

(5) Thank | novelP

Share it here to repay the seniors for their experience that I read before my submission. 2018.11.12 submitted; 2018.11.28 under review; 2018.12.19 under Editor evaluation; 2019.01.04 First decision (It took half a month during which a Christmas was interval); 2019.03.05 revision submitted; 2019.03.20 accepted. I personally thought it was very fast. It took 4 months in total because of the Christmas and the delay in revision and submission by myself. Otherwise, it can be faster.

(14) Thank | kidyytalant

This is one of the top publications in earth science; second to Geology, I’d say. The review speed is fast, the editor is responsible and professional, and the articles published are of high-quality.

(2) Thank | Anonymous

Do you need anything else?

(0) Thank | 九转大肠味道棒

Submitted in mid-April, it has been 2 weeks and still with editor. Received multiple automated emails during this time, seems like it has been passed around to 4 editors in a row...
Fingers crossed

(0) Thank | aboutocean

Submission returned with reviewer comments after 2 months, suggesting resubmission. 
After revisions made within 2 months, received reviewer comments after 1 month, accepted after minor revisions

(1) Thank | ob-Q1

Received reviewer comments in early August, resubmitting in early October

(0) Thank | ob-Q1

2023-10-21: Submitted to Journal
2023-10-23: with editor

(0) Thank | 不懂

I submitted another article recently, this time it was not too fast.
A total of 11 months in total, one major revision and one minor revision.
During the major revision,
I and my co-authors were too busy to make changes in time, so we asked the editor for a 2-month extension.
During the minor revision, it took 2 and a half months to find reviewers.
At the same time, I felt that I wanted to make the content better, so I asked the editor for a one-month extension.
After returning the minor revision, it was immediately accepted smoothly

(1) Thank | 哎哟嘟嘟嘟

Please translate the following paragraph into English and Japanese, and use "English Translation:" and "Japanese Translation:" as headers

(0) Thank | 刘院士

Full of nervous anticipation for the results, submitted on September 11, 2023, the current status is "with editor"

(10) Thank | Nlnice

One week later, under review.

(0) Thank | ob-Q1

Posted at the beginning of June, recording the experience of submitting an entry. Hoping for good results.

(0) Thank | ob-Q1

4 months after submission, a minor revision was made. After 1 month, the revised version was received.

(0) Thank | 林宇艾

Two reviewers are enough. You now have 2+ possibly because some reviewers rejected the manuscript, and the editor is finding new ones.

(0) Thank | 哎哟嘟嘟嘟

The process was tortuous, and the ending was not satisfactory, but it is still worth recording. Submitted in mid-April, returned for major revisions at the end of June, with one positive and one neutral feedback, mainly emphasizing the need to enhance the article's innovation and significance. Made corresponding modifications according to the suggestions of the two reviewers and resubmitted in early August. After half a month of editing, the original two reviewers were invited to review, but reviewer 1 and 2 did not accept the review for over 20 days. Therefore, new experts were invited. Later, it showed a 2+ agreement for review. On October 25, which is today, the review comments were received. Reviewer 1 is still the same as the first review and agreed to accept it. Reviewer 2's review system and email did not show up, so the reason is unclear. The new reviewer 3 believes that the scope of the article is not suitable for EPSL readers, and the opinions are relatively impartial, but also provided some difficult-to-implement suggestions (partially denying the research significance). In the end, the editor suggested transferring to Tectonophysics or Geomorphology through Elsevier, with a one-month deadline to decide. Reflecting on the excitement and anticipation at the beginning of the submission, it is not realistic to pretend that nothing happened when being rejected. The submission experience indeed shows that EPSL requires higher innovation and research perspectives, and I can only blame my limited abilities. Perhaps comforting oneself that the research journey without rejections is incomplete. The road ahead is long, so let's keep going, little research chick.

(57) Thank | Moon river

I clicked on that link, but when I went in, it was the user page of the corresponding author. I could see that the review is in progress, but it doesn't show how many reviewers have been invited...

(0) Thank | haoshihaocc

Excuse me, how did you send the email?

(0) Thank | 努力上进

Elsevier will send the corresponding author a URL that can be clicked to view.

(0) Thank | 努力上进

Excuse me, it has been two months under review. The system shows that one expert has completed the review in half a month, but the other expert has not finished yet. Should I send an email to the editor to inquire about it?

(0) Thank | 努力上进

Excuse me, have you received it now?

(0) Thank | haoshihaocc

May I ask where to see how many reviewers have been invited? I can only see the status as "under review" in the system.

(0) Thank | haoshihaocc

Congratulations! Could you please post the time points of each status?

(0) Thank | haoshihaocc

We submitted the manuscript on April 20, 2022 and received the first round of comments on June 30. The editor then sought another reviewer, and we received their comments on September 12. The status has also changed to "Required Reviews Completed."

(10) Thank | charmingboy81