After NC and SA were rejected for review, European collaborators suggested directly changing to GPL, a very concise journal with a positioning similar to Geology, but lacking in influence. It is a very new journal, which seems to have a vague domestic positioning for GPL (with some risk of wasting materials).

(2) 讚！ | Yurnhero

As a newly emerged journal in the field of Earth science, especially in geochemistry, GPL mainly employs top scientists as editors, such as C.-T. Lee. The published articles require relatively new research content. The suggestions given by reviewers are very pertinent, and the revised articles are accepted the next day. However, the difficulty of submission is relatively high. Previously, I submitted to NS and got rejected before submitting to GPL. In the field of Earth science, the overall level is similar to Geology, but many articles require global representativeness, as well as cutting-edge and innovative content.

(2) 讚！ | 小蚂蚁

It is a journal in the field of geochemistry, and the style is high. The outstanding innovation is required, and global indication significance is also required. And the materials should also be a global or representative sample, otherwise, it will be rejected directly by the editor. I heard from my colleagues that this journal accepts articles rejected by Nature or Science. It can show you have enough ability if you have an article published in this journal. I feel it is as difficult as Nature, Science and Cell. However, it is more concise than Nature, Science and Cell, and I feel it is more like an updated version of Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. One month after submission, it was sent for review. The result was returned in two months. All the comments of 5 reviewers were relatively positive, and the editor didn’t give a chance of revision. Two months were wasted for nothing.

(8) 讚！ | feelingling

The difficulty of GPL is really big and the editor-in-chief is very strict. The article is about the cluster isotope direction of deep-sea samples, it was sent for review to four reviewers, but they did not reject or accept it directly. They did give a lot of comments, and they were all real-name reviewers. The editor directly rejected the manuscript. The comments from the reviewers are very good. Basically, each reviewer has 30 or 40 comments. The article has been greatly improved after revision. After the revision, I resubmitted it, and the editor-in-chief rejected the manuscript directly. The reason is that the meaning of the article is relatively limited. It is recommended to submit Chemical Geology, Lithos or JP.

(2) 讚！ | 南海ES

A new geochemical journal, whose was initially defined as NS in the geochemical field. All the journal articles are very cutting-edge, and the boss was looking forward to publication of an article. However, it was not sent for review 24 days after submission. The editor-in-chief was very polite and suggested transferring it to Chemical Geology. Finally, the article was accepted by CG, and it was satisfactory.

(4) 讚！ | Jiyanyes