The handling editor is the most responsible editor I have ever met.

Submitted on September 25, 2023
September 27, 2023 with editor
Under review on September 30, 2023
Comments returned on March 1st, 2024,  one moderate, two major
The first draft returned on April 25, 2024
The review comments returned on May 10, 2024, 
Submitted for the third time on May 20, 2024
May 20th, 2024 there are still some minor errors.
The fourth Submission May 22, 2024
Received on June 18th, 2024

(0) 讚！ | 刘院士

Hello Guo Fucheng from Guangxi, is it necessary to have three reviewers, or is it because the first two reviewers have conflicting opinions that a third reviewer is invited?

(0) 讚！ | cugcq

Hello, candidate for the construction site preparation. I would like to ask if it is necessary to have three reviewers, or is it because the opinions of the first two reviewers are divided that the third reviewer is invited?

(0) 讚！ | cugcq

2023.2.28 Submitted to Journal
2023.3.1 With Editor
2023.3.2 Under Review
2023.4.24 Major Revision (R#1: Moderate revision; R#2: Rejection and resubmit; R#3: Moderate revision)
2023.6.20 Revison submitted (R1)
2023.6.20 With Editor; Under review
2023.10.23 Minor Revision (R#3: accept after minor revision)
2023.10.23 Revison submitted (R2)
2023.10.23 With Editor
2023.11.27 Accept
2023.12.1 Pre-proof published online
2023.12.12 Final version published online
It was quite fast for the first review, but it got slower as it progressed, waiting over a month after submitting the final revision

(0) 讚！ | Magical26

Is it not possible to see the manuscript on the review system after dragging it for a month?

(0) 讚！ | 475

Is it a major revision or a minor revision for the external review? How many reviewers?

(0) 讚！ | 工地预备选手

Three reviewers have already agreed to review the 40-day RRC.

(37) 讚！ | 工地预备选手

After being rejected by two journals, the article was finally lucky enough to be accepted by GR. Overall, the process was very smooth, with a fast submission and review. After the first revision, it was accepted directly. The only thing to note is that GR will delay acceptance for 1 month after everything is fine. We were delayed for 2 months, longer than the review time, hahaha.

(6) 讚！ | 刘玉东

In the field of Earth Sciences, it has consistently ranked in the top tier for many years, and its influence and reputation are currently very good.

(53) 讚！ | 节节高

GR is now a leading journal in the field of geology, and it is indeed a bit difficult to reach that level. Our research group has been rejected several times already, but hopefully, we can submit it for review today!

(68) 讚！ | Communications

Same question, how long does it take to review?

(0) 讚！ | 北油沉积小陈

How long does it take to send for review?

(0) 讚！ | CookMai

The speed is too slow, always in the state of submitting to the Journal.

(0) 讚！ | 徘徊与盛世不堪的浮

Earth Science is ranked consistently in the top tier.

(0) 讚！ | 遥感人

May 20, 2022 Accept
The initial submission date was Sep 24, 2021
It took eight months.

(0) 讚！ | 广西郭富城

Unlike other disciplines such as environmental science and chemistry, it has always been our goal to publish an article in this journal. This journal has high innovation requirements and its positioning determines that. The review process is normal, taking about 4 months from submission to acceptance. However, my article was originally rejected by a Nature subjournal. It had a large research scale and workload, but the idea was good. I wish the journal continued to improve.

(0) 讚！ | 遥感人

Jan 11, 2022, with editor
Mar 21, 2022, Decision in Process
Repair: There is an editor confirming the review, but they have not yet provided their feedback.
Normally, the review process should take one month.
Wishing for good luck.

(0) 讚！ | 广西郭富城

After revision, it will be directly labeled as "With Editor." How long does it take to submit for external review again? Approximately how long does it take to receive feedback again?

(0) 讚！ | 遥感人

Nov 30, 2021   recommending major revisions, resubmission and re-review

There are three reviewers in total.
The third reviewer returned their comments half a month late and provided feedback similar to a short paper, getting straight to the point (probably suggesting major revisions or rejection).
The journal has a fast turnaround time and high requirements.
Prepare well for the revisions and hope to be accepted! (Making a wish)

(0) 讚！ | 吉大郭富城

September 24, 2021 Submitted to Journal
September 25, 2021 With Editor
September 27, 2021 Under Review
November 4, 2021 Required Reviews Completed! Three reviewers in total, with one pending response.
November 7, 2021 Under Review
November 25, 2021 Required Reviews Completed! Wishing for good luck.

(2) 讚！ | 吉大郭富城

The quality of GR is not to be discussed (everyone has their own opinions), but the attitude of the editors and reviewers is indeed the best I have encountered, very serious. I previously submitted a paper to EPSL, and after more than a month, the editor there said that what you wrote is very good, but it is too limited... that kind of arrogance is really unaffordable (of course, they have the capital). Speaking of which, if one day GR surpasses EPSL in reputation, quality, and scientific rigor, I believe that everyone will not only choose the latter and give up the former.

(116) 讚！ | 啸聚山林

Overall, this article went quite smoothly. One month after submission, the first round of reviewer comments came back. There were two reviewers in total, one suggested minor revisions and the other requested submission after making the necessary modifications. The associate editor asked for resubmission after the revisions were made. Based on the reviewer comments, it took one month to make the modifications before resubmitting. After resubmission, it took another month to receive minor revisions from the reviewer. The changes made this time were mostly minor language-related issues, such as word choice. There were two rounds of modifications related to a small issue with the reference to the appendix. Finally, the article was accepted successfully. The editor-in-chief and associate editor were very nice.

(20) 讚！ | ekkolee

There is a research paper that I personally believe is well done. Initially, I considered submitting it to GSAB, with two reviewers. However, one of the reviewers may have had a different opinion, so it was not possible. Later, I revised it and submitted it to GR. There were four reviewers and an associate editor, and they provided several pages of comments, which surprised me when I saw them. Previously, I had heard that this journal had some issues and its impact factor was inflated. However, when I saw the comments, I actually found them to be very rigorous. The reviewers, who are well-known young talents in the field, made objective suggestions that would help improve the paper. It took nearly half a year from start to publication. Overall, I feel that it was a very rigorous process. Regardless, I hope that there will be more and more good journals for us to choose from.

(9) 讚！ | 像风一样

Recently, I submitted two articles. Personally, I think the quality of both articles is good. One of them was accepted after revisions, while the other was directly rejected. I feel that the difficulty of submitting articles has increased significantly compared to previous years. The reason for the direct rejection was that the new data I provided was insufficient (as the journal's basic requirement for submission is data), and another reason was that there have been too many high-quality articles submitted in recent years. The reviewers and editors for the accepted article were very good and provided many constructive suggestions, which greatly improved the article. The only dissatisfaction I have is that the review process took a bit long.

(11) 讚！ | Wenbin

What is the reason for the deputy editor's rejection? If your work on the Qinling Mountains is rejected, then that's just laughable.

(0) 讚！ | Thanos