Science of The Total Environment Review Time 2026: Time to First Decision and Publication

Decision cue: If you need a yes/no submission call today, compare your draft with 3 recent accepted papers from this journal and only submit when scope, methods depth, and claim strength line up.

Related: How to choose a journal • How to avoid desk rejection • Pre-submission checklist

Science of The Total Environment is one of the highest-volume environmental science journals in the world, receiving upward of 30,000 submissions annually. That volume shapes everything about how the review process works and how long authors wait.

The timeline in numbers

Desk rejection decision: 2-4 weeks from submission. STOTEN has editors handling very high manuscript volume and desk rejection is common. Papers outside scope, lacking novelty, or failing basic quality checks get rejected quickly.

First decision (peer-reviewed papers): 6-10 weeks from submission. This breaks down roughly as:

• Desk review: 2-4 weeks
• Reviewer recruitment: 1-2 weeks
• Active peer review: 3-5 weeks
• Editorial decision: 1 week

Papers that run long: Papers in reviewer-scarce subdisciplines, submitted in August or December, or with complex methodology that requires specialist reviewers can take 12-16 weeks to a first decision.

Time to online publication after acceptance: 2-4 weeks to article in press. Final issue pagination takes 2-4 months longer.

What the status labels mean

STOTEN uses Elsevier's Editorial Manager. The key status markers:

With Editor -- Your paper has been assigned to a handling editor. This covers both the desk review phase and sometimes the early part of peer review. If you've been With Editor for more than 4 weeks, you're likely past desk review.

Under Review -- Your paper is with external peer reviewers. This is the active review phase. Typical duration: 3-5 weeks. Some reviewers need more time and the editor extends deadlines.

Required Reviews Completed -- Reviewers have submitted their comments. The editor is reading and writing the decision letter. This usually takes 1-2 weeks.

Decision in Process -- The editor has made a decision and the system is processing it. You'll receive the email shortly.

If you see no status change from With Editor after 6-8 weeks, a brief, polite inquiry to the editorial office is appropriate. STOTEN's Elsevier editorial team is responsive to status queries.

What slows review down

High submission volume. STOTEN receives more submissions than most environmental journals. Finding reviewers for every accepted paper is logistically demanding. Many potential reviewers decline because they're overcommitted.

Reviewer availability by field. Some STOTEN subdisciplines have thin reviewer pools. Niche topics in ecotoxicology, specific regional environmental monitoring, or emerging contaminants may require extended reviewer recruitment.

August and December. Review timelines at most journals lengthen when researchers are on holiday. STOTEN is no exception. Papers submitted in late July or late November typically wait longer.

Methodology requiring specialist reviewers. Papers using unusual analytical methods, advanced statistical modeling, or interdisciplinary approaches that require reviewers from multiple backgrounds take longer to staff. Editors may need to send the paper to 3 or more reviewers to cover all methodological aspects.

Reviewer revision requests. Papers returned for major revision and resubmitted go back to reviewers (usually the original reviewers plus sometimes a new one). That resets the clock by 4-8 weeks.

What authors can control

Scope match. STOTEN's scope is broad but its title is precise: the total environment. Papers should address how human activities affect the environment at a meaningful scale, or how environmental contaminants and changes affect ecosystems and human health. Papers that are too narrow (single-site, single-chemical, single-species with no broader implication) trigger desk rejection or desk-friendly reviews that result in rejection.

The fastest path through STOTEN is a paper that clearly explains its broader environmental relevance. If your introduction explains why this specific finding matters for environmental management or policy beyond your study site, you're more competitive than papers that don't make that connection.

Reviewer suggestions. STOTEN asks for suggested reviewers. This is worth doing carefully. Suggest researchers who:

• Published in STOTEN or comparable journals in the last 2 years
• Work in your specific methodological area (not just topical area)
• Are mid-career and active (more available than very senior researchers)

Editors don't always use suggested reviewers, but when reviewer recruitment is difficult, having a list of qualified candidates helps. Papers with good reviewer suggestions move faster.

Complete submission. Missing supplementary data, incomplete figure captions, absent ethics statements, or required declarations that need to be added after submission restart the clock. Submit with everything complete the first time.

Timing. If you have flexibility, submit in September-October or February-March. These are high-availability periods for reviewers in most environmental science fields.

When to follow up

Wait at least 10-12 weeks from submission before querying. STOTEN processes an enormous number of manuscripts and status queries before that point rarely yield useful information and can be counterproductive.

When you do reach out, use the Elsevier editorial contact form or email with your manuscript number and a single sentence asking for a status update. Don't escalate to the editor-in-chief on a first inquiry.

After the first decision

Major revision is the most common outcome for papers that reach peer review at STOTEN. Reviewers frequently ask for additional data, broader contextual framing, or more rigorous statistical analysis. STOTEN gives authors 2-3 months for major revisions.

After resubmission, major revisions typically go back to the original reviewers. Expect 4-8 weeks for a second decision.

Minor revision decisions are resolved faster -- authors usually have 4-6 weeks, and the paper often goes directly to a final decision without returning to reviewers.

Rejection after review is more common at STOTEN than the desk rejection rate alone suggests. Reviewers sometimes assess that the work is not novel enough for this journal even if the science is sound. If rejected after review, the detailed reviewer comments are worth reading carefully before deciding where to send the paper next.

Faster alternatives if timing matters

If you need a faster decision in environmental science:

Environmental Science and Technology (ACS) -- Similar IF (11.4, JCR 2024), faster turnaround at around 4-6 weeks to first decision.

Environment International -- IF 10.3 (JCR 2024), similar scope to STOTEN, often somewhat faster for well-scoped papers.

Chemosphere -- IF 8.1 (JCR 2024), Elsevier, similar scope and comparable timeline to STOTEN.

PLOS ONE -- Slower in some fields, but broader scope and a soundness-based review model that can result in faster decisions for methodologically solid papers.

The volume effect

STOTEN's high submission volume is worth understanding directly. The journal published roughly 3,500-4,000 papers in recent years. With 30,000+ submissions, most papers are rejected. The sheer scale means editors handle multiple papers per day and reviewer pools are under constant strain.

That context explains why a 6-10 week timeline is realistic and why 12-14 week timelines happen even for papers that eventually get published. It's not an editorial dysfunction, it's a resource constraint from operating at scale.

The practical implication for authors: if timing matters for a patent application, a conference deadline, or a funding report, factor in 10-12 weeks as a conservative estimate and plan accordingly.

The Bottom Line

STOTEN first decisions take 6-10 weeks for peer-reviewed papers. That's not particularly fast or slow for a high-IF environmental journal. The journal's volume creates real reviewer recruitment pressure, and timelines in difficult-to-staff subfields can extend. The best lever available to authors is a clear scope argument in the introduction that helps editors assign reviewers and helps reviewers see the paper's place in the literature.

Sources

• Elsevier STOTEN author guidelines and editorial policies
• JCR 2024 (Clarivate Journal Citation Reports) -- impact factor data
• Author experience reports from SciRev

See also

• How to choose a journal for your paper
• How to avoid desk rejection
• Pre-Submission Checklist