Science of The Total Environment Review Time

The 2024 JIF fell from 8.8 in 2023 to 8.0 in 2024, but the broader Scopus profile stayed strong with a CiteScore around 16.4 and an SJR around 2.137. That mix fits how editors use the journal: still broad, still visible, but less interested in incremental environmental monitoring that cannot justify the total-environment framing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Science of The Total Environment, three patterns most often decide whether the review cycle stays efficient or becomes a slog.

Site-specific data without a field-level lesson. Per the updated aims and scope, the journal wants novel, hypothesis-driven work with broad environmental impact. We see many papers with competent local data that do not yet answer a broader environmental question. Those papers are the ones most likely to be filtered quickly or sent into review with a weak starting position.

Single-compartment framing on a cross-compartment problem. Per SciRev community data, the first review round is around 1.5 months and immediate rejections average about 7 days. In our review work, papers that treat groundwater, sediment, air, or biota in isolation often slow down because reviewers ask authors to justify why STOTEN is the right venue instead of a narrower title.

Environmental relevance that arrives too late in the manuscript. Editors specifically screen from the abstract and opening paragraphs. We see this when the methods and local dataset are clear but the broader consequence, pathway logic, or management implication does not appear until the discussion. That usually hurts both desk odds and reviewer enthusiasm.

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.