Is the probability of being hired after the major overhaul high?

(0) 讚！ | 北油沉积小陈

Did you submit your article for review on the same day as the original poster?

(0) 讚！ | Leon612

Like the Mar Geo (Zone 3), it seems that this journal has recently been taken over by Chinese people and has lost its original reputation. The outcome of the submission is unknown

(0) 讚！ | 李冉三占

Major revisions were requested after 11 months of review, and the manuscript was finally accepted after 1 year and 3 months

(0) 讚！ | stonerose

Direction of Petrology
Submitted on February 15th, the chief editor returned three days later requesting language polishing and addressing minor issues.
Resubmitted on March 3rd.
On April 16th, the first reviewer's comments were returned, both reviewers suggested major revisions. The editor followed the reviewers' suggestions for major revisions, but only allowed three weeks.
On May 2nd, revision comments were returned, the chief editor did not send it for another review and only suggested minor changes.
On May 4th, the revised manuscript was accepted.
Proofreading and publishing were completed within two weeks, demonstrating a very high efficiency!

(0) 讚！ | HansRose

Posted on September 3rd, under review for a few days;
Updated on September 19th, still under review.
Updated on November 11th, reviews invited.
After the Lunar New Year on January 30th, reviews are still invited. Following the advice of my senior colleague, I emailed the manager to request a change in the editor.
On January 31st, received the reviewer's comments, minor revisions.
Returned on February 23rd, with the editor.
Accepted on February 24th.

(0) 讚！ | Jimbo

Earth Science is an established journal, although its impact factor is not high, its reputation is good. The efficiency of the editors I encountered was quite high. One revised article has been accepted:
Received: 19 March 2022
Decision made: 14 April 2022
Revised: 2 May 2022
Decision made: 18 May 2022
Revised: 23 May 2022
Accepted: 30 May 2022
Available online: 2 June 2022

(0) 讚！ | CaitliaChen

The editing hasn't been assigned yet, so naturally it hasn't reached the step of submission for review. The manuscript was already withdrawn yesterday.

(0) 讚！ | 牛乳局局长

23年1.19投，submitted to journal 25天没变化，催了一次也没实质性效果。2.14撤稿。

Translation: 
Submitted on January 19th of the 23rd year, there was no change for 25 days after submission to the journal, and urging once did not yield any substantial results. Withdrawn on February 14th.

(0) 讚！ | 牛乳局局长

Mine is the same, did you send yours for external review?

(0) 讚！ | Lily lliu

Previously, it took about 6-7 months from submission to acceptance. However, this time after submitting, it took 10 months to find reviewers and another year to receive feedback. I almost withdrew the submission because it took so long. Recently, the review process has been very slow.

(0) 讚！ | stonerose

First submission, submitted to the journal on January 19th. It has been 10 days and it's still not with the editor. What's going on?

(0) 讚！ | 牛乳局局长

It has been 10 days since it was submitted to the journal on the 19th, but it hasn't been reviewed by the editor yet. What's the situation?

(0) 讚！ | 牛乳局局长

Hello teacher, may I ask where can I find the submission format? I couldn't find it.

(0) 讚！ | 翟华烨

It has been 3 months since submission... I don't know why, but I heard from my teacher that CG can be quick, yet it is still in the "reviewers invited" stage.

(0) 讚！ | Jimbo

My article with the editor has been almost two months now. The reviewer took two months to provide feedback, and there has been no news from the editor for another two months.

(0) 讚！ | 波妞

Has anyone recently submitted any manuscripts? My submission to the Journal has been in the "Submitted" status for 20 days now. What is happening with CG recently? I don't know what to do...

(188) 讚！ | wuchao342626

Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the research, the editors of Chemical Geology took a long time to find reviewers, thus delaying the publication for one year.

(0) 讚！ | Aknight Chong

Isotope-oriented manuscript

The journal that required payment in order to be published in Zone 4 rejected the submission. The funny thing is, the editor claimed to have consulted 50 reviewers, and they all recommended rejection. Yes, fifty reviewers.

The manuscript was submitted to this journal on January 25, 2022, and went under review one day later.

On March 8th, major revisions were requested. Two reviewers, one of whom is a well-known expert in the field, provided very professional feedback and raised serious concerns about the analytical methods, suggesting major revisions. The other reviewer disagreed with the conclusions of the article and also recommended major revisions. The editor suggested adding supplementary materials and requested major revisions. Consultation with the lab's professor led to extensive modifications, resulting in a 20-page response.

A revised manuscript was submitted on March 20th and returned on April 20th. Both reviewers and the editor agreed to accept it, but requested modifications regarding language. The manuscript was sent to a language editing company, which took 8 days to complete the proofreading.

A second revised manuscript was submitted on April 30th.

On May 4th, it was accepted.

This is a reputable and well-established journal in Zone 2. The review process was fast, and both reviewers and the editor provided valuable and professional feedback, significantly improving the manuscript during the review process.

(15) 讚！ | 清单

It has been 45 days and it is still in the "Editor Assigned" status. Did you forget to update the status? Was the review process fast as you mentioned?

(0) 讚！ | siyoyo

10/29/'17, first submission
Mar/'17, returned with comments that can be addressed (one said accept with minor), but editor said rejection
05/28/'18, second submission after revision
Oct/'18, no reply from the editor after inquiry (article status unclear). withdraw
Jan/'19, accepted by Marine Chemistry with minor revision
What upsets me most is, the editor was not only slow but far from communicative. What made it so difficult for him to give me a quick "rejection" for my second submission?

(0) 讚！ | Judy

Received 3 and a half months after submission. The article went through 2 rounds of review. The review comments added up to nearly 30 pages, greatly improving the quality of the manuscript. The editor handled the manuscript quickly. In the span of 3 months, the article was mainly in the hands of experts for review and the author for revisions, without wasting too much time with the editor. In conclusion, CG is a good journal.

(0) 讚！ | bowen

CG is more difficult than I imagined, and I submitted it in a hurry. There are a total of three reviewers. One recommended minor revisions, while the other two recommended major revisions, and the editor chose the major revisions. The reviewers' comments were all very professional and directly pointed out the key issues. Both major revision comments had crucial suggestions, but luckily the materials were not bad, so they gave me a chance to make changes. I am prepared to make good revisions. I hope for good luck.

(8) 讚！ | bowen

5.25 Submission
7.1 Minor revision
7.8 Returned
7.14 Accepted.
Chemical Geology is still well-regarded in the industry, although its impact factor has slightly decreased in the past two years.

(2) 讚！ | 小伙子

2021.01.17 Posted
2021.03.20 Initial review comments returned, minor revisions required
2021.04.06 Returned revised manuscript
2021.04.12 Resubmitted to the same reviewer for review
2021.05.06 Second review comments returned, one more issue with the figure needs to be modified, minor revisions required
2021.05.20 Returned second review revised manuscript
2021.05.22 Article accepted

(1) 讚！ | Leslie Xiu