ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION

Very good editor, very efficient. Requires substantial data and good discussion.

(13) Thank | Tony

Each journal has some time limit for processing the manuscript such as first decision, review, etc. This journal takes its maximum time limit due to COVID 19 . After uploading, it took 7 months to accept the manuscript. Totally 3 reviewers asked the questions to improve the manuscript. All the questions are valuable, reasonable and interesting. Especially, the figure alignment and document formatting such as figure alignment, italics, bold, etc., need to be checked properly before upload.

(1) Thank | Ramalingam

Visually 2018IF is 5.3-5.4

(2) Thank | 爱学习的巧克力

This year will go up, and now the editing process is very fastThe first trial is about one month, and the first trial is revised one month after the revision of the second trial.

(0) Thank | 216354152656

Real-time impact factor has been 5.24

(2) Thank | 216354152656

After 4 months, I finally received it.It is not a district, the Chinese Academy of Sciences is also drunk.

(2) Thank | 嘻嘻哈哈

Thank you very much EP, the efficiency is very high!I wish we all good luck~2018.6.20. submit2018.6.21. with editor2018.6.24. reviewer invited2018.7.3. under review2018.9.12. minor revise Limited time is 29 days.The reviewer has a total of four questions on the content, and the editor has raised the details of several figures.2018.10.8. submit2018.10.8. with editor2018.10.10. accepted2018.10.12. available online

(2) Thank | 爱学习的巧克力

contribution, 6d in the editor's hand.This review is a bit worried.

(3) Thank | Pengpeng

Once I used to have an EP, I have always been concerned about EP.Overall, the EP journal has a good recognition.Many friends in the comment section mentioned the problem of the decline of IF in 2017. This is mainly due to the expansion of the EP in the past two years. However, after the pain period of the expansion, the EP will usher in the IF rising period.As of September 9, 2018, the implementation impact factor of EP is 3.71, TOTAL is 3.72, and EST is 4.58. On September 6, 2017, the real-time factor EP is 2.50, Total is 2.83, EST is 3.96, and final EP is 4.36.Total is 4.61 and EST is 6.65.According to this rhythm, EST will definitely break 7 when IF comes out in 2018, EP is expected to be around 5.8, but hopefully breaks 6; Total is expected to be between 5.5-5.7, we will wait and see.

(26) Thank | 908589712@qq.com

Submitted on August 6th, 2018, directly with editor after three days, no modification formatAugust 16 under reviewBecome ready for decision on August 20thAugust 26 is also ready for decision, but the date has changed.August 28 is also ready for decision, but the date has changed.September 7th First review comments, revised, submitted revised draft within 21 daysThis speed is really fast.Looking forward to accepting!

(1) Thank | huangb199203@gmail.com

After submitting the manuscript for 3 months, the major revision is proposed in five categories (including language issues).It was accepted after one month of revision.I feel that the editor is very detailed, and the comments are very pertinent. After the revision, I feel that the quality of the article does improve.It is best to consider the innovation, do not select for some purely repeated research, and try to pay attention to the details, don't make mistakes, otherwise you will be caught, and you need to solve it sooner or later.

(1) Thank | eric_liu

There are four reviewers in the first trial. After two major overhauls, there are two minor repairs. The opinions are super-multiple. I feel that the reviewers and editors are more responsible and attitude.very serious.I hope that EP can become a district, I think they are not very different

(0) Thank | 我是一棵草

The article has been published online on the EP recently. From the submission in December last year, it has been going through a full 6 months, followed by a major overhaul and minor repair.The first trial lasted for more than two months, the second trial lasted for half a month, the speed was quite acceptable, the editor was very responsible, and the three reviewers in the first trial raised a lot of key questions, and the quality of the article was greatly improved. Two reviewers in the second instance,Carefully go to the punctuation and the wording of the word.Overall, I experienced a lot of knowledge through this submission.The publication requirements of EP articles are still relatively strict. The above quality is also okay. It requires a lot of data and certain innovation, but it has not yet been in the previous district. Unfortunately, the impact factor will be lowered this year, and I don’t know why.Finally, thanks to the editor, reviewer.

(2) Thank | ycmsichuan2009@163.com

1. 12.11 Submissions Modify the language back and forth, adjust the content format, etc., and submitted it again on January 5th;2. 1.15 under review;3. 3.15 major revisions Three reviewers A minor overhaul A major overhaul (or a rejection of the manuscript, it is unclear) Two months to modify;4. Complement the experiment, add discussion, engage in one and a half months, 4.29 revision submitted, and soon under review;5. 5.16 minor revision, reviewers agree that the paper is very well modified, two minor issues;6. 5.23 revised submitted after three hours;7. 5.25 proof. The editor (Marina Cristina Fossi) is very good and efficient.In general, the amount of data is large, the discussion is sufficient, a little new, and the opportunity is quite large;I have sent EST, chemosphere, JHM, SOTEN, etc. during the reading of Bo, I have not sent EP, and now I have finally worked.Efforts will be rewarded, and everyone will share it.

(6) Thank | Tony

This paper mainly studies the specific mechanism of boron to alleviate aluminum toxicity in plants.Contribution No. 2018.3.5, editor No. 3.8 said that the repetition rate was re-submitted once, and the major revision was received on No. 4.6 (6 reviewers were found, one refused to approve, and five agreed.) 4.11 Reworked back.No. 5.7 direct accept

(4) Thank | 22

EP is not a large amount, so it is not TOP.But the word of mouth is good, the industry is more respected.In the past two years, there have been two articles, and the speed is very fast. The number of submissions for ES

(1) Thank | duhui

2017.9.16 submit2017.12.14 Still under reviewI don't know if the editor is going on vacation. This journal is one of the slowest journals in my submission.

(2) Thank | haha

45 days from submission to reception, efficiency is very fast.However, the opinion of the first instance was overhauled and received directly after careful revision.Very good journal.

(0) Thank | duwpku@gmail.com

Reviewed for 6 weeks and received comments from 4 reviewers, very professional and detailed.From scientific issues to language issues.The chief editor is also extremely responsible for helping the touch-up to modify the language.From review to publication, the entire process is extremely efficient.PROOF was received within 24 hours of receipt, and the issue number and page number were discharged in a few days.Reflecting the professionalism, rigor and efficiency of top journals, it is very good!

(0) Thank | liuwdut

From the time of submission to acceptance for two months, the deputy editor is very responsible and the processing speed is very fast.Directly acceptd after a major overhaul, thanks

(0) Thank | 风行者

Editor is very responsible, the review experts are very patient, big and small problems are helpful to point out, easy to modify.Published quickly.

(1) Thank | 191957125@qq.com

The editor is very responsible, the reviewing experts are very patient, and the problems of big and small are pointed out and the modification is easy.Published quickly.

(0) Thank | 191957125@qq.com

Why isn't it top??

(0) Thank | zaw

The submission period is longer, not only the reviewer is not easy to find, but also the review is slow, the submission is under review for more than 2 months, without any news and changes, and the previous journal evaluation is checked.The review speed of journals is slow, with an average of 3 months. It is recommended that people who are in a hurry should be cautious~

(3) Thank | 溺水的飞鱼

submitted out, because the format, the effective number does not match, changed three times, after being thrown out, was rejected, because the content does not match.

(3) Thank | 路过