The research direction is metal stable isotope geochemistry. 20190605 submission; 20191108 major revision required; 20200104 revision submitted; 20200128 under review; 20200503 revise and accept; 20200520 accept. The research content is relatively new and the data is good, so this submission is fairly smooth. Accepted after major revision for the first review. But this review cycle is really very long. There were a deputy editor and 3 reviewers. Two reviewers in the first review thought that major revisions should be made, the third reviewer suggested to accept it. We carefully revised it according to the suggestion, and finally it got accepted. The deputy editor and reviewers have put forward some constructive comments, which were very helpful for the article. A very good academic journal!

(6) Thank | Ocean Liu

I just checked the system and found that the article was officially accepted, so I want to write something to share my experience. The article was submitted on November 24 2018. There was not much hope at the time. After all, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta was not particularly like articles on traditional petrology in recent years, but my supervisor insisted on having a try. Unexpectedly, the associate editor sent it for review. 2019.4.4, the result of first review came out: Revise and Reconsider. Three reviewers and associate editor raised a lot of questions. I then revised it carefully for nearly 3 months, and the content of the articles was increased by one third, and reply to reviewers’ comments was written about 18,000 words. It was then resubmitted on June 29 2019. At that time, it was only sent to one of the reviewers who requested a major change to review again. At the same time, the associate editor also read it himself. On August 29 2019, the result of the second review was given, “Revise and Accept”. At this time, it was equivalent to being accepted, and the associate editor only asked for careful revision. It was resubmitted on October 20 2019, and it was officially accepted on November 20 2019. Actually, for the acceptance of this article, I am personally very grateful to the associate editor Professor Wolfgang Bach (although I have never met or contacted with him), because of his submission for review, the article had a chance to be revised and published. Therefore, it is strongly recommended to recommend a very suitable associate editor when submitting (although we did not recommend one at the time)!

(12) Thank | PKU_Carboner_彭

Being published on Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (GCA) is really difficult. One manuscript was submitted in last year and one in this year, but both of them were rejected. There were two rejection and one major revision given to the one submitted in last year. It was then transferred to Journal of Hydronautics, and it was accepted after more-than-one-month minor revision. It is just an example, but it can basically be seen that GCA is much more difficult than those top Q2 journals. (P.S., the impact factor of Journal of Hydronautics is 4.4 this year.) One reviewers clearly rejected the manuscript submitted in this year, and the other two requested to make major revision, and the editor rejected it directly. It was transferred to Water Resources Research, and it is under review. The review time was more than two months and more than three months respectively. Basically, each reviewer had at least 20 or 30 comments. Even if major revision was required, it is tantamount to rewriting it. The submission acceptance rate of GCA given by Elsevier is up to 40%. According to the official account of journal, it is indeed the case. But it is too naive to think that it is easy to be accepted by GCA.

(12) Thank | xdhy

This was my first paper during my doctoral study. It was a rough process. My paper is on Li isotope geochemistry in subduction zones. First submitted on July 20, 2017, and was rejected after 3 months. There were 3 reviewers, 2 of whom requested major revision and the other requested minor revision. They all said that the interpretation of the data was not accurate, but they encouraged me to submit again after revision. They gave a lot of suggestions and comments. I revised the paper according to the review comments, changed the overall structure and the conclusions a lot. Some calculations have been added, and I felt the paper had been greatly improved. I submitted again on June 5, 2018, and received the comments on August 5, major revision. The same three reviewers; 2 of them suggested acceptance, but the other one insisted on major revision. The editor requested major revision. The reviewers all said that there had been a great improvement, and they gave more than 20 comments. I addressed each question carefully, and resubmitted on October 31. Accepted on November 20 but there was one more question. After revision, officially accepted on November 29. I think the editor and reviewers are fair and provided a lot of suggestions from different angles, which were very helpful in improving the article.

(13) Thank | Ocean Liu

Study on high-temperature processes of stable metal isotopes, submitted in November 2023, received feedback in late January 2024, moderate, all three reviewers' feedbacks were positive, and the paper was accepted after incorporating the suggested revisions. The difficulty level was lower than that of EPSL and Geology, as long as the topic is suitable, the difficulty is not as great as imagined

(0) Thank | 美国政府将

Research related to ore deposits, conducting micro-area S isotope analysis. One original submission with three reviewers, one minor revision, one major revision, and one rejection. The main issue was the limited number of samples, with only one sample available. Two reviewers felt that the sample was not representative enough and suggested additional sampling. The editor gave a rejection with an invitation to resubmit. After adding data from two additional samples and making improvements according to reviewer comments, the revised manuscript was resubmitted. This time, it was sent to the previous major revision and rejection reviewers. One reviewer thought the revisions were well done and recommended acceptance, while the other reviewer insisted that, although samples were added, the representativeness of the three samples was still insufficient and recommended rejection. The editor said in this case, only a major revision could be given, however, manuscripts resubmitted to GCA must be at least a medium revision, so it was given a rejection. It's a bit disappointing, as it was felt that the work was done well, but let's continue to strive

(0) Thank | kkdjaflkjgr

Dong Hailiang has been replaced

(0) Thank | 连箭

May I ask if sharing data recommended by journals through Mendeley Data is better? Should we set an embargo date or make the data publicly accessible? I tried it out, and it seems that the files cannot be downloaded through a link if there is an embargo

(0) Thank | 坟头蹦迪001

Ridiculously shaking rhythm

(0) Thank | 广西郭富城

Rejected after two major revisions in nine months, is this really something that a human would do? Previously, there was a submission that Jeff was stubbornly self-centered, sometimes acting as an audience and sometimes as a reviewer. After the final round of revisions, he felt that the noise level of the EXAFS spectrum was too high. What the heck, why didn't you say that earlier? Let it be reviewed according to the reviewer's suggestions. All three reviewers recommended acceptance, but in the end it was rejected. It's unreasonable that the impact factor of GCA hasn't dropped, and they still haven't changed the editor-in-chief

(1) Thank | cskwxy

Submitted in November 2021, accepted in October 2023. Two rounds of major revisions, one round of minor revisions, five reviewers, who else dares?

There was a delay of over half a year, but it had nothing to do with the speed of the review process: the data requested by the reviewers was the work of another team, and we had been waiting for them to publish. In reality, review notifications could be received within three months after submission. Both the reviewers and the editors were very efficient, with many comments and suggestions being professional and helpful. However, they were also thorough and strict in terms of the content of the article.

A less mature suggestion is not to submit highly comprehensive long articles to GCA. Few reviewers will understand all aspects of your work, which can present significant obstacles during the review process

(1) Thank | TigerZl

September 2, 2023
The review ended in a brutal manner with comments from two reviewers of over 3000 words each. 
It was really tough! The reviewers were very professional!

(0) Thank | 广西郭富城

Aug 01, 2023   Submission
Aug 04, 2023 Under Review
Wishing for good luck
(PS: Remember to read the submission guidelines. Sharing data is now necessary! Discussing and results should be written separately!)

(0) Thank | 广西郭富城

Do GCA need to submit the raw data?

(0) Thank | Mariafivelord

The flagship magazine of geochemistry places great emphasis on professional expertise, requiring detailed and in-depth discussions. The submission period is relatively long, usually giving reviewers at least 2 months per round. The editing process is rigorous, and it may undergo more than 3 rounds of review, with a total time of possibly over one year.

(1) Thank | 林宇艾

The article was originally intended to be submitted to Lithos, but the external editor suggested it would be more suitable for GCA. Even though two reviewers thought it was good, the third reviewer felt that many issues were unresolved and provided me with over 60 suggestions! Therefore, the Associate Editor (Rosemary Hickey-Vargas, the editor-in-chief of EPSL) encouraged me to revise and resubmit. It took me half a year to intermittently revise the article and respond to the suggestions, totaling 12,000 words. I am truly grateful to some reviewers who not only provided suggestions but also offered further modification advice at the same time! After resubmission, the Associate Editor finally accepted the article with minor revisions.

First rejection:
2020.08.20: Submitted to journal
08.25: With editor
09.11: Under review
10.16: Required Reviews Completed
11.04: Reject

Resubmission - Accepted with minor revisions:
2021.05.25: Submitted to Journal
06.01: With Editor
06.22: Under Review
08.31: Decision in Process
08.31: Minor Revisions
10.13: Revision Submitted to Journal
10.19: With Editor
10.27: Accept

(28) Thank | 风入松

This article has produced something that I personally feel is quite valuable. Because I urgently needed to use this article, I submitted it to Chemical Geology in early April 2020, hoping for a quick response. However, it took over two months for the editor to assign it. Later, I sent an email to inquire about the status and was rejected by the editor-in-chief, citing that it was not suitable for the readership of CG. I then resubmitted it to GCA on June 24, 2020, and received the review comments on September 13, which stated "revise and reconsider". I wrote a response to the comments, totaling 16,000 words. It was returned on November 18, and on January 6, 2021, I received an email stating "revise and accept". The reviewers believed that the revisions were well done, and the associate editor (Ralf Halama) made two suggestions and asked for language improvements. On January 18, it was returned again, and this morning I received an email from the editor accepting it. I have to say that both the associate editor and the three reviewers were very professional, and I feel that they have greatly contributed to my improvement. Additionally, the AE of this article, Ralf Halama, was extremely nice and even helped me with some language-related issues.

(18) Thank | Kaj

20180326 Contribution20180501 Under Review20180617 Revise and reconsider20180809 Under Review20180912 Revise and reconsider20181015 Submit a return draft20181017 AcceptI am very fortunate to post an article above, although the process is a bit long.Now this journal also likes cross-disciplinary articles.

(3) Thank | 心晨

After changing the editor-in-chief, things about aqueous geochemistry are getting harder and harder.The rejection of the letter makes people feel very amateur.Finally, I had to change to Chemical Geology and accept it in less than three months.

(5) Thank | drink8

changed the editor, things about aqueous geochemistry are getting harder and harder.The rejection of the letter makes people feel very amateur.Finally, I had to change to Chemical Geology and accept it in less than three months.

(0) Thank | drink8

Last year, August 31, 2011, the submitment was made. On January 18, 2013, the first instance returned the opinion. After the revision, it returned on January 29, and on February 7, the second instance returned three comments.On February 19, he returned to the revised version of the second instance and accepted it on March 13.Looking back at the entire manuscript is too long, although it will be long, but it is still smooth!As long as the editor is asked in a reasonable time, the editor will update the status of the manuscript. I usually edit it once every 2-3 months. Even though the editorial department replies, the editor will update the time in the submission system, which tells us that they areHandle the manuscript.The editor still likes some of the more original manuscripts. The man who handled my manuscript is Edward Hornibrook in the UK. People compare nice.The first paper during

(3) Thank | Anonymous

PhD was received by GCA.In less than two months, he received the review comments. The editor and the two reviewers gave good evaluations. They gave Minor. The editor has directly said that it is very likely to be accepted and personally enjoying reading this paper, and it is expressly unnecessary.The second round of the external review.After two weeks of modification, submitted it, and then accept it four days later.Thanks a lot more than I expected, thank you very much for reviewers and editors.Frank Podosek, the editor of GCA last year, retired

(4) Thank | Anonymous

is a very good journal, which not only values ​​the geological application value of the paper, but also focuses on innovation in experiments and calculation results.One of the previous years was rejected and two were accepted.After reviewing 2 drafts, remember that the editors are required to complete the trial within 15 days.I feel that the review cycle is now very short.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

A very high level journal.In terms of environmental geochemistry, the theoretical depth and the average level of the paper are higher than ES&T.There are very few articles in China that are currently submiting in GCA.And aside from the problem of personal style, Duan Zhenhao can be an associate editor, which is very remarkable, recognized by the academic level in the world.

(1) Thank | Anonymous

Journal Homepage URL: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find ... ription#description

(0) Thank | Anonymous