I resubmitted the article to Geology after major revision; will it be distributed to previous reviewers? How long will the review take after the second resubmission? Will it still be 3 months?

(6) Thank | 天天搞地质

Submitted in August 2016, and received the review comments at the end of November 2016. Rejection, but the editor encouraged resubmission. Of the three reviewers, one suggested acceptance after minor revision, one suggested major revision, and the other suggested rejection. After revision according to the three reviewers’ comments, I submitted again on January 20, 2017 and receive the decision of minor revision on February 28, 2017. Of the three reviewers, two agreed to accept, while the other still suggested rejection. I submitted the revised paper in mid-March 2017, and it was accepted two days later.

(5) Thank | 他乡梦

The rejection was received after 2 months and a week following QC.
One major rejection, undoubtedly rejected.
One reviewer for notes, one for modeling.
The comments were quite fair, especially from the second reviewer.
Will consider submitting again in the future.

(0) Thank | Rlo

Sorry, I forgot to update last year because I was busy with graduation. I submitted my first geology paper in early April last year and was rejected in mid-July after a review period totaling three and a half months. Because the topic is niche and there were many different components to stitch together, a lot of time was wasted trying to find reviewers. In the end, I only found two reviewers, one suggested major revisions and the other suggested rejection, so the editor ultimately rejected the paper.

P.S. I made major revisions to the paper earlier this year and submitted it to GRL. It is currently undergoing the second round of peer review. I will update next door if there is any news, and if it doesn't work out, I will have to submit to Terra Nova.

Overall, geology is a good journal, but it is quite difficult to submit to. Reviewers have very strict requirements for innovation, logical writing, and language proficiency. However, my English skills and expression abilities are not very good, so I will not submit to short article journals like geology in the future. Short articles are actually harder to write than long articles, and transferring to other journals is also limited. I personally think that journals like GSAB and Tectonics are more suitable for me, haha.

(0) Thank | 野外出到昏厥

At the end of September, I received feedback from three reviewers. Two of the reviews were very positive, with only minor revisions suggested, and the reviewers expressed the desire for the article to be published quickly. However, the third reviewer showed great malice and bias, raising concerns about conflicts of interest in the research without even reading the article. They only read the abstract and raised 15 questions, even though the main text provided detailed information and cited over 20 references, many of which were the reviewer's own articles. It was obvious that this reviewer wanted me to cite their work. After the initial round of reviews, the editor expressed a strong desire to publish the article and invited me to resubmit. All the co-authors spent a month trying to satisfy the unreasonable demands of this malicious reviewer, but due to the geology journal's requirement of fewer than 35 citations, we could only indicate in our response that we had cited some of their work but could not include all of it. When we resubmitted in November, the editor rejected the article outright, citing our inability to meet the demands of the malicious reviewer as the reason, without even sending it for further review. This wasted over a month of everyone's efforts, and despite a 2:1 ratio of positive to negative reviews, we still had to comply with the demands of the malicious reviewer. I will not comment on the actions of the editor and reviewers, but I caution everyone hoping to resubmit to proceed with caution, as the efforts expended may not reach the hands of those who support you.

(0) Thank | 小斯子

Personally, I feel that when "In Review (can take 1-4 months)" changes to "In Review (time changed)", it indicates that a reviewer has completed the review and feedback has been uploaded.

(0) Thank | 平凡的坚持

How is the result now?

(0) Thank | 平凡的坚持

The top journal in the field of Earth Sciences, none other.

(0) Thank | Communications

In Production     03-18-2024
Decision Complete     03-18-2024
Decision in Process     03-06-2024
Accepted     03-06-2024
Decision in Process     03-06-2024
In Review (can take 1-4 months)     03-05-2024
Editor Assigned     03-05-2024
                                03-05-2024
Initial QC Complete     03-05-2024
Initial QC Started     03-05-2024

(1) Thank | 不再摸鱼的喵神

Contribute a Timeline, experience is after "In Review" (can take 1-4 months) there is another "In Review" which means it is under review

(1) Thank | 不再摸鱼的喵神

May I ask how many "in review" posts the original poster is displaying now?

(0) Thank | Allen_Geo

How many "in review" are currently displayed?

(0) Thank | Allen_Geo

Thank you for your email, and sorry for any confusion with the status chart. The system adds a new "In Review (can take 1-4 months)" line every time a reviewer accepts the invitation to review the paper.
It means that the paper has been submitted for peer review.

(0) Thank | mzw

May I ask if you now know what this status represents?

(0) Thank | Allen_Geo

It has been over a month since I submitted, and as of now, it has returned to the status "In Review (can take 1-4 months)". I emailed the staff and they said they have not found enough reviewers yet and are still contacting them.

(0) Thank | 野外出到昏厥

One day later, it changed back to "in review". What does this mean?

(0) Thank | mzw

After being handed over to the editor, whether or not it is sent for review, it will always be in the "in review" status.

(0) Thank | 林宇艾

What is the status of "in review"? Has it been followed up on?

(0) Thank | heartbeater

Same question, what is the status of review1-4 months? Has this level been passed through editing?

(0) Thank | heartbeater

Hello, I would like to ask the original poster about the review process for geology. I submitted my work some time ago, and yesterday it was assigned to an editor. The current status is "In Review" (can take 1-4 months). I'm a bit confused, is it currently in the hands of the editor, or does it really take 1-4 months for processing?

(0) Thank | hbklt

Three reviewers raised many questions from different perspectives. After the first review rejection, it was resubmitted with significant revisions. After the major revisions were made, the resubmission was given three weeks for minor edits. It was then accepted directly by the editor-in-chief. It was not easy.

(2) Thank | 乌拉拉哇嗷

It requires special creativity and the ability to express oneself in concise language. The review results can either be minor revisions accepted, rejection with the option to resubmit, or outright rejection. In recent years, it has faced competition from other high-impact-factor publications, resulting in a slight decline in its status.

(2) Thank | 林宇艾

Because of being in a hurry, there are some problems in the writing, but the editor-in-chief still suggests resubmitting. I didn't insist anymore, which is a bit of a pity.

(4) Thank | ninh

The text translates to: "After being appointed as the editor-in-chief of a certain journal, it was discovered that this person had conflicts with Geology and their submission was directly rejected!"

(5) Thank | 发文章啊先人

with a geological phenomenon confirmed by a Chinese drill, to illustrate an international hot issue that may break through the industry bottleneck, butThe scientific editor believed that the study area was confined to a basin. There was no universality. If it was not submitted for trial, it would be directly paralyzed. I wonder if it is necessary to consider re-submitment.

(2) Thank | 5hjl998@163.com