I don’t know how this review speed is 2–4 weeks. I browsed the official website; the average cycle of an article took half a year!

(0) Thank | da 猪

Top journal, Icarus influence is even bigger than Planet.

(2) Thank | myEl

I really can't agree with that. I recently reviewed a paper, the data was good, but the writing was terrible, there was no proper discussion. Personally, I would position this journal below CG, JGR, and MAPS, but above EPSL, GRL, GCA, ApJ-AA-MNRAS. The impact factor is only 2.4, which really says something. So I encourage the authors to revise and resubmit. The editorial process may be quick, and we as reviewers are punctual, with the first review within a month, and the final acceptance of the article in just over two months. As for what the OP said about being better than NC, I suggest they first publish a paper in NC.

(2) Thank | boss ke

Are there usually three reviewers for a manuscript?

(0) Thank | @zjh

Already submitted revised acceptance, the time frame is similar to what was mentioned downstairs, around six months. In our research field (Planetary Science), many influential researchers have published multiple articles in Icarus, so we have decided to submit to Icarus. The reviewers are quite professional and their feedback greatly helps improve the quality of the article. In the field of Planetary Science, the prominent journals include Nature sub-journals, several AGU journals such as GRL, GCA, EPSL, Elsvier's Icarus, JGR Planets, etc.

(29) Thank | heywego

Regarding this magazine, it is better to listen to the opinions of those in the field. The review period is definitely not 2-3 weeks but generally 3-4 months, depending on major or minor revisions. The second review usually takes around 7 days to three months. Additionally, this magazine focuses on planetary science (I myself study the moon). This field is relatively small, so the reviewers are mostly top experts in this specific area. Two out of my three reviewers are Benjamin Greenhagen and Bruce Hapke, who respectively published in the prestigious science journal about Diviner and are the founders of the Hapke model. Therefore, there are two possible outcomes: first, this journal provides an opportunity to communicate with top scholars worldwide, but your article must be nearly flawless, at least in the reviewers' research areas. Second, this journal will greatly enhance the quality of your article, achieving a level that cannot be compared to domestic journals (Will domestic academicians review your article?). Thus, if you study planetary science, this journal is a good choice, much better than nature communications, but I am unsure about other research fields. Additionally, since new research emerged in my field during the submission period, I actually submitted my manuscript twice, totaling over 3 years. Please consider for yourselves whether this journal is good or not. Furthermore, this journal was upgraded from Tier 3 to Tier 2 by the Chinese Academy of Sciences in the past few years, which confirms my viewpoint. Just think about which journals were downgraded and you will understand.

(161) Thank | 心情不错

How did they come up with the speed on this? Misleading people, everyone around says the average cycle is half a year, and the review process takes two to three months.

(6) Thank | yilanduo