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) 讚！ | 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) 讚！ | 不再摸鱼的喵神

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

(0) 讚！ | Allen_Geo

How many "in review" are currently displayed?

(0) 讚！ | 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) 讚！ | mzw

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

(0) 讚！ | 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) 讚！ | 野外出到昏厥

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

(0) 讚！ | 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) 讚！ | 林宇艾

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

(0) 讚！ | heartbeater

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

(0) 讚！ | 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) 讚！ | 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) 讚！ | 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) 讚！ | 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) 讚！ | 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) 讚！ | 发文章啊先人

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) 讚！ | 天天搞地质

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) 讚！ | 5hjl998@163.com

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) 讚！ | 他乡梦

The first time after submitting the manuscript for three months, he refused to recommeded resubmission, and after two months or so, he accepted the

(0) 讚！ | 我的神

My first review of Geology's review comments was a minor change. The key requirement of this journal is “innovation” and it needs to provide absolute evidence.It means looking at the problem from a completely new perspective, and can fully explain the point of view in a very short space.

(11) 讚！ | dongliu@cugb.edu.cn

Now no ah

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

has high requirements for research content, English and so on.The research content is preferably highly innovative or contributes to a certain field.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

Journal Homepage URL: http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/

(0) 讚！ | 匿名