It took about two years. There were one rejection, two major revisions, one moderate revision and one minor revision. 15/Dec/2018, submission; 06/May/2019, rejected but invited for resubmission; 29/Oct/2019, resubmitted; 19/Jan/2020, major revision; 22/May/2020 major revision; 09/Jun/2020, moderate revision; 29/Aug/2020, minor revision; 07/Sep/2020, accept. The comments of the editor Budiman Minasny were very pertinent and the efficiency is high (take over from 22/May/2020). Thanks to the honorary editor, professor Alex McBratney as well.

(41) Thank | Cloud诺夏

Let me share the submission experience. 7.26 submit; 8.1 with editor; 8.2 reviewer invited; 8.8 under review; 9.24 reject and encourage resubmit (review1 minor revise, review 2 revise (I think the result is very good, but the writing logic is too bad)); 10.11 resubmit; 10.12 with editor; 10.22 under review; 11.27 decision; 12.01 decision; 12.02 moderate revision (review1 accept; review2 still reject; reviewer 3 minor revise); 12.06 resubmit; 12.07 with editor; 12.12 accept.

(7) Thank | hehe2333323

2019-2-26 submit, 2019-3-7 reject and encourage the back after the modification of language, 2019-3-18 resubmit, 2019-3-20 under review, 2019-5-17 major revision. There were four reviewers with two moderate revisions and two major revisions. I replied more than 7000 words. 2019-7-10 submit, 2019-7-12 under review, 2019-9-2 minor revision. The two reviewers only have a small question, and decided to accept the manuscript after modification. After three days of revision, I was about to submit it the next day. Just then I suddenly received the editor’s email with the comments of the third reviewer in the morning, who was exactly the one with the most comments for the first time. It was still a bunch of comments. 2019-9-18 submit, 2019-9-19 with editor, 2019-9-20 accepted. I have gone through all kinds of hardships and difficulties. But the reviewers' opinions are really good, especially the one with the most questions. The editing process is very fast, and time is mainly wasted by the reviewers. The editor is David Laird. I give him a thumbs up.

(5) Thank | 路人斌

The review was fast, about two months. There were four reviewers, and the comments were pertinent, nothing overly critical. I submitted after major revision, then waited about 4 months. I reminded the editor about it, and the editor quickly replied and accepted the paper after a minor revision. The journal is efficient; the editor and the manager are very nice and patiently answered my emails. Major revision was mainly about improving the language. I used Editage and it was helpful. Must answer every single question raised by the editor and reviewers, answer them carefully and be modest. The editor was satisfied with my revision, and it seems that the paper was not sent to the reviewer. In short, my experience is to be meticulous, thorough, and modest, and believe in yourself. This is a very good journal, focusing on the physicochemical properties of the soil, the spatial differentiation of elements, etc.

(5) Thank | tianmi62080608@126.com

The review comments from the submission in May 2024 were received at the end of August. The first round of reviews had comments from 2 reviewers, which were relatively easy to respond to. The revised manuscript was sent back at the end of September. In November, the second round of reviews from 3 reviewers provided numerous comments, totaling 20,000 words just for addressing the questions. Surprisingly, there was a third round of reviews with another 20,000 words. It was exhausting, and even the teacher felt helpless. The revised manuscript was sent back in mid-February, and I had almost given up hope. Luckily, it was finally accepted in early March after a 10-month long process.

(0) Thank | 飘飘

Submitted on July 10, 2024;
Revised on October 6, 2024, with input from 3 reviewers, the managing editor, and the editor-in-chief, totaling 5 opinions;
Revised again on November 19, 2024;
Sent for review on November 22, 2024, with 2 reviewers;
One reviewer accepted the review on December 3, 2024, and returned the comments on December 6, 2024;
As of January 27, 2025, the other reviewer's comments are still pending, prompting the editor to invite another reviewer;
As of March 5, 2025, the status remains as "under review";
It is unknown how long the reviewers have been given to review the paper, and it is frustrating as they seem to be too busy to provide timely feedback.

(0) Thank | 毛毛虫爱吃的菜

2025.1.6 submitted
2025.1.17 under review, with 3 reviewers
2025.1.24 review completed by 1 reviewer
2025.2.21 review completed by 2 reviewers

(0) Thank | li-ethan

After four rounds of revisions, including rejection and resubmission, major revisions, moderate revisions, and minor revisions, the article was finally accepted. The quality of the article has greatly improved.

(0) Thank | 吃一大口白日梦

Who knows what is the minimum number of reviewers required by Geoderma, 2 or 3?

(0) Thank | 小野泽泽

I have submitted my paper now, but I didn't see the section for recommending reviewers.

(0) Thank | James2306

Hello, I recommended three domestic reviewers when submitting the manuscript, but the editor returned it and requested a maximum of two reviewers from the same country. When I tried to resubmit, I couldn't find the "recommended reviewers" section. Have you encountered this situation before?

(0) Thank | 大中小猪

The submission was made at the end of August and accepted in mid-December, taking a total of 3 and a half months. The majority of the time was spent on the first round of peer review, which lasted for 2 months.

(0) Thank | 辣条哥

Can you please share a template for responding to feedback?

(0) Thank | LLL

Could you please share a template for responding to feedback?

(0) Thank | LLL

Do you have a template for responding to revision suggestions?

(0) Thank | LLL

Based on past experience, it is most likely a rejection, and I feel like giving this editor a hammer on the head.

(0) Thank | 要投多少次才行啊

How long does it usually take for review feedback to come back?

(0) Thank | 小野泽泽

Catena is good, especially the articles on biogeochemical processes, especially those in the wetland direction, most of which are rejected by GCB.

(0) Thank | 辣条哥

How about Catena?

(0) Thank | z_y1

Invited 6 reviewers, 4 reviewers accepted the review, 3 reviewers provided feedback, waited for 20 days, and the editor insisted on waiting for the opinion of the fourth reviewer. I highly recommend against submitting to this journal, it's better to focus on improving your content and submitting to SBB or GCB.

(1) Thank | 辣条哥

1. Submission in early September
2. Major revisions by the end of August
3. Revisions due in early September
4. Acceptance by mid-October
To be honest, this journal progresses slowly, so I do not recommend it for students in a hurry.

(0) Thank | Linda

Submit in mid-April
Review in early May
Complete the revised manuscript in mid-June
Return in early July
Submit again at the end of July
Minor revisions in early September
Please be patient and wait.

(0) Thank | 一天一个小目标

This magazine is really slow and the requirements are quite high. It's better to submit to GCB or SBB.

(0) Thank | 辣条哥

May I ask if you have any news now?

(0) Thank | 辣条哥

The first article submitted during my doctoral studies went through the same peer review process as other journals. The waiting process was nerve-wracking, hoping for a smooth outcome. I want to share my submission process with everyone, hoping that we all receive a positive result.

(1) Submission: 24th May 2024
(2) Major Revision: 24th June 2024, deadline 8th August 2024
(3) Revision returned: 15th August 2024
(4) Minor Revision: 1st September 2024, deadline 16th October 2024
(5) Revision returned: 4th October 2024
(6) Acceptance: 5th October 2024

Currently, the corresponding author has been notified via email that the paper can be accepted, but there may still be some final edits or proofreading needed. Payment cannot be made yet, so I hope for a swift conclusion to give closure to this work.

(0) Thank | WanwanY