It's normal, it hasn't been sent yet. Maybe it's under internal review, or maybe they're contacting reviewers. Many journals have slowed down their review process over the past year. Just be patient

(0) 讚！ | nur

It has been a month since the editing process started. Is it under review or still in the hands of the editor? Seeking clarification, thank you.

(0) 讚！ | liddd

What is the review process like? It has been nearly a month with the editor. Is it still in the editor's hands or has it already been sent for review? Please help, thank you.

(0) 讚！ | liddd

The initial draft was submitted on November 25th. On January 24th, there were major and minor revisions based on various opinions. There were many suggestions, and the reviewers, including the editor-in-chief, were very meticulous. They even went through the article sentence by sentence to improve the grammar, which was very touching. I returned on April 1st, and on April 5th, the editor requested further polishing. After the polishing was done on April 15th, it was returned, and on April 19th, it was accepted.

(1) 讚！ | 寒武纪学渣投SCI

The editor-in-chief, Professor Wolf-Christian Dullo, is excellent, not only efficient but also provides many constructive suggestions. The acceptance took only three and a half months, very fast.

(0) 讚！ | 渣渣小芭蕉

The first SCI paper was submitted to this journal, and it was accepted after revisions. The comments from the editor-in-chief and the reviewers were very pertinent and helpful. There were a total of two reviewers, and after three rounds of revisions, it was directly accepted. It is a very good journal.

(2) 讚！ | zzcgeology

Very professional journal. I always felt that this journal was low-key and not well-known, so I submitted to “Sedimentary Geology” and “Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology (Palaeo)” at the beginning. The reviewers in SG expressed doubts about the Sr isotope experiment data, so it was rejected. Palaeo was even frustrating. A reviewer said it was recommended to make a major revision, but he said nothing about how to do it. I was dizzy when I received an email of the rejection from the editor... Finally, I chose this journal. The first time I submitted, it lasted for two months for the review. The reviewers were very, very, very careful and serious. They read each paragraph carefully and raised 3000-word opinions requiring for major revisions. I was very touched and learned a lot during the revision process. It is no exaggeration to say that it is a qualitative improvement. I found that I did not express it clearly in many places, but the conclusion is not a big problem. Finally, I returned it after the language editing by LetPub, and it was accepted in one month. It took a total of 3 months. When I finally received the letter from the editor, the names of the reviewers were included, who is indeed an expert in the field of geological sequence isotope. The reviewer sought by this journal is very rigorous and the suggestions given are very good. It is worth submitting.

(17) 讚！ | 小斯子

is very good.The questions raised by the reviewers are also more professional and received in more than four months.

(0) 讚！ | CGU-ORE

Very good journal. However, the review cycle was longer than expected, and it was only returned in three months.

(0) 讚！ | Kenneth Yu

Journal Homepage URL: http://www.springer.com/earth+sc ... geology/journal/531

(1) 讚！ | 匿名