Keep a record, also accumulate some good karma for yourself.
2023-09-16 Submit
2023-09-16 Under Review
2023-10-31 Revise
2023-11-22 Resubmit
2023-11-25 Under Review
2023-12-25 Accept

(0) 讚！ | sunshineyin

Recording the submission process
4.22 Submission
4.27 Under review
5.24 First reviewer completes review
6.3 Second reviewer accepts review, pending completion

The process so far seems to be going smoothly. I hope the submission goes well!

(0) 讚！ | 墨斗鱼

Big guy, I was rejected for submitting to Sustainable Cities and Society. Do you recommend transferring to this journal? I wrote about green buildings. Is it because the theme does not match? Why do you recommend transferring to a transportation journal?

(0) 讚！ | 只想发paper

The progress is very fast, with one milestone reached every month, and online publication within three months

(1) 讚！ | 赵不到

I advise those of you writing about built environment and travel behavior topics not to submit to this journal. According to multiple sources, most submissions are immediately desk rejected as being out of scope. You can check the articles in the journal, most of them are co-authored by JC or have his name on them. If you don't believe it, you can try, but you will most likely receive a desk reject within two days, so it's not worth the time (haha

(2) 讚！ | qiqibba

Directly hired after the first submission
Timeline for reference:
May 2023: Submission
July 2023: First round of revisions based on feedback from three experts, one expert's feedback was sharp and precise, while the other two were relatively mild.
End of September 2023: Second round of revisions, two experts accepted directly, while one expert requested adding a table summarizing the literature review.
October 2023: Published after being hired.
Experience:
The first submission requires a high standard in formatting, with double spacing and page numbers added before resubmission. Also, the repetition rate needs to be below 15%, it is recommended to check before submitting, and the citation rate for a single paper should ideally be below 1%

(3) 讚！ | 科研小白冲冲冲

Indeed, most of the references are for part D, but the editor rejected it immediately, saying it is not within the scope of the journal. Disgusting.

(0) 讚！ | peike

There are too many articles that I have written on this topic, and the editor rejected them directly. However, a few days ago, I was asked to review a similar research article with outdated methods and no innovation, but it was successfully submitted for review. Could it be because it was too long (over 60 pages with only a few pages of valuable information) and the editor didn't want to read it carefully? The journal is definitely still a good journal, with its impact factor increasing every year.

(0) 讚！ | fslxjzc

The language requirement is high, the quality requirement is high, but the impact factor and partition are average.
If there is a slight problem, it needs to be revised and resubmitted, which is a bit troublesome and requires patience. It took four submissions and one month to be successfully published.
The speed is relatively slow, and in the case of very good review comments, the cycle is more than 4 months, not 3 months.

(3) 讚！ | 科研辣鸡

The article was not sent for review after submission. I strongly suspect the editor-in-chief Robert Noland has a personal sentimental tendency! There were many articles with same direction published on this journal, but it was said that our article did not conform to the direction. I will no longer consider this journal, and I hope it to be blacklisted soon. Bye.

(3) 讚！ | dl118

Submission after 6 months to overhaul, spend a month to amend, 1 month after returning rejected

(0) 讚！ | 伤心

09/Sep/2016 submit; 15/Sep/2016 send for review; 24/Oct/2106 Reviews complete; 22/Nov/2016 Invitation to revise. The decision from the first round was major revision. Three reviewers. The first is definitely an expert in my field; must have read my paper very carefully, and the wording was very critical. I felt so down reading the comments, but indeed every comment was very to the point, and there were a lot of mistakes in the paper, even some mistakes that I shouldn’t have made. The second reviewer was milder. The third reviewer must be working in a different field, so their comments were mostly outside my field. Both the editor and reviewers raised concerns in the language. I only started revising it when only half a month was left, causing the cycle to become longer. 09/Jan/2017 Received revision; later changed to under review and stayed at that status; 08/Apr/2017 accepted and I received the notification by email. Looks like every two months is a cycle. Ranking is Chinese Academy of Sciences JCR major field engineering technology Q3, minor field transportation technology also Q3

(1) 讚！ | fslxjzc

under review No news for 9 months, has been requested to retract.烦

(1) 讚！ | 随便起个名

Editing is very responsible for the revision from chapter layout to word usage. After 1 month, it is used after a minor repair.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

Journal Homepage URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13619209

(0) 讚！ | 匿名