Science of The Total Environment Submission Guide: Requirements, Formatting and What Editors Want

The journal's scope is the "total environment," meaning interactions between the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, and anthroposphere. In practical terms, STOTEN publishes:

• Environmental chemistry and pollution monitoring

• Ecotoxicology and risk assessment

• Water quality and treatment

• Soil contamination and remediation

• Atmospheric pollutants and air quality

• Environmental epidemiology (pollution-health links)

• Waste management and circular economy

• Climate change impacts on ecosystems

What it doesn't publish: purely clinical studies, pure ecology without an environmental stressor, agricultural science without environmental context, or lab-scale synthesis without environmental application. This scope check is where most desk rejections happen.

Research Articles are the main format. No official word limit, but reviewers and editors prefer papers in the 5,000 to 8,000 word range. If your paper exceeds 10,000 words, move supplementary methods and data to the supporting information.

Short Communications present a single noteworthy finding in about 3,000 words. Good for time-sensitive results, pilot studies with clear implications, or methodological advances that don't need a full paper.

Review Articles should be proposed to the editor before submission. The journal publishes both systematic reviews and narrative reviews, but unsolicited reviews have a lower acceptance rate. If you want to write a review, send a 1-page proposal to the editor-in-chief outlining the topic, why it's timely, and your qualifications.

This is mandatory. Papers submitted without a graphical abstract get returned without review.

Specs:

• Single image, maximum 531 x 1328 pixels

• Summarize the key finding visually

• Minimal text (short labels only)

• White or light background preferred

• Submit as a separate TIFF, EPS, or high-res JPEG

For environmental science papers, effective graphical abstracts often show a conceptual diagram: source of contamination, pathway, effect, and the finding your study contributes. Avoid pasting a figure from the paper. Create something that tells the story at a glance.

STOTEN editors handle hundreds of papers. Your cover letter needs to work fast.

Include:

1. Title and article type

1. Two or three sentences on why this work is significant for the total environment

1. What's new compared to existing studies

1. Statement confirming no simultaneous submission

1. Four to five suggested reviewers with emails and affiliations

• Don't include: A rehash of the abstract, a long literature review, or generic statements about the importance of environmental research. Editors can spot padding immediately.

Structure: Title, Abstract (max 150 words), Keywords (4-6), Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion (can be separate or combined), Conclusions, Acknowledgments, References, Figure Captions.

Abstract: STOTEN prefers structured or semi-structured abstracts. Even if you don't use subheadings, cover background (1-2 sentences), methods (1-2 sentences), results (2-3 sentences), and implications (1 sentence). Stay under 150 words.

Keywords: Choose 4-6 keywords that someone would actually search for. Include the specific pollutant, organism, or method name, not just broad terms like "environment" or "pollution."

Figures: Submit separately at 300+ DPI. Use consistent font sizes across all figures (minimum 8 pt after scaling). Color is free online. For maps, include a scale bar and north arrow.

Tables: Editable format within the manuscript. One table per page at the end of the document. Avoid tables that duplicate figure data.

References: Elsevier numbered style. Include DOIs. No fixed reference limit, but 40-60 is typical for a research article.

STOTEN requires a data availability statement. The journal encourages, but doesn't yet mandate, public data deposit. Acceptable approaches:

• Data deposited in Mendeley Data, Figshare, Dryad, or a discipline-specific repository (best option)

• Data included as supplementary files

• Data available on request (acceptable but weaker, and some reviewers will push back)

For studies involving human subjects, animal experiments, or collection of protected species, include ethics committee approval numbers in the Methods section. Environmental sampling permits should be documented where relevant.

Based on published editorial notes and author experience, STOTEN editors prioritize:

• Environmental relevance. The paper must connect to a real environmental problem. Pure lab work without environmental context gets desk rejected even if the science is solid.

• Appropriate scale. Single-location studies are fine if the findings have broader implications. But if your results only apply to one specific site with no transferability, the paper is better suited for a regional journal.

• Sound statistics. Environmental data is often messy. Editors expect proper statistical treatment, including sample size justification, appropriate tests for your data distribution, and honest handling of variability.

• Novelty beyond monitoring. Monitoring data alone isn't enough. "We measured pollutant X at location Y" needs a twist: a new source, a new mechanism, an unexpected trend, or a policy-relevant finding.

• Scope mismatch (no environmental connection)

• Missing graphical abstract

• English quality below publication standard

• Monitoring data without novelty or mechanistic insight

• Incomplete methods (can't be reproduced)

• Sample sizes too small without justification

• Conclusions that exceed what the study design supports

STOTEN's editorial flow follows Elsevier's standard Editorial Manager workflow and what STOTEN authors report through community channels. Treat these as planning ranges, not promises.

• Day 0: Editorial Manager upload. The Editorial Manager submission portal portal accepts the package, runs integrity checks, and routes to a section editor matching the manuscript topic.

• Days 1 to 14: Editorial admin and triage. Editor verifies graphical abstract, scope fit against the total-environment definition, and required statements. Most desk rejections (graphical abstract missing, out-of-scope, weak novelty) happen here.

• Days 14 to 30: Reviewer invitations. STOTEN typically invites a minimum of two reviewers per Elsevier's published guideline. Finding reviewers in niche subfields (environmental epidemiology, microplastic ecotoxicology) can extend the timeline.

• Days 30 to 90: Peer review. Reviewer reports return on a 4 to 12 week cadence depending on study complexity. STOTEN often invites a third reviewer when the first two disagree.

• Days 60 to 120: First editorial decision. Major revision is the most common outcome for papers that pass the desk screen. Single-revision acceptances run roughly 4 to 6 months; multi-round revisions extend to 6 to 9 months.

• Days 120 to 270: Revision rounds, acceptance, and online publication. Elsevier production typically pushes the paper online within weeks of final acceptance.

A STOTEN submission readiness check can identify whether the graphical abstract, scope framing, and methodological depth meet the desk-screen bar before you upload.

• [ ] Graphical abstract as separate file

• [ ] Cover letter with novelty statement and reviewer suggestions

• [ ] Abstract under 150 words

• [ ] All figures as separate high-res files

• [ ] Data availability statement included

• [ ] Ethics approvals documented in Methods

• [ ] Keywords are specific and searchable

• [ ] Supporting information prepared separately

• [ ] All co-authors have approved the submission

• [ ] English proofread by a proficient speaker

For a detailed pre-submission review, see our checklist or manuscript review service.

Source: Clarivate JCR 2024

The practical decision is not simply JIF. STOTEN is strongest when the manuscript needs an integrated environmental frame: pollutant source, exposure pathway, receiving compartment, biological or health consequence, and policy relevance in one package. Environmental Science & Technology is usually stronger when the chemistry or engineering mechanism is the main contribution. Journal of Hazardous Materials is usually stronger when hazard, toxicity, remediation, or contaminant behavior is the center of gravity.

Chemosphere is often the safer fit when the study is solid environmental chemistry but does not carry enough total-environment integration for STOTEN.

STOTEN sits at Q1 rank 39 out of 374 in Environmental Sciences (JCR 2024), which makes it a strong but not elite placement. The journal publishes roughly 6,240 articles per year, that's massive volume, and it means your paper won't get the same visibility bump you'd get from a lower-volume Q1 journal. The Cited Half-Life is 3.9 years, so papers here get picked up fast but don't accumulate citations as long as some competitors.

That volume is a double-edged sword. It's easier to get in than, say, Environmental Science & Technology (which publishes far fewer papers at a higher IF), but it also means your work competes with thousands of other papers for reader attention. If your study has genuine environmental scope, connecting multiple compartments (water, soil, air, biota) or linking exposure to health outcomes, STOTEN is a natural fit.

If the work is narrowly focused on one pollutant at one site with no transferable insight, a regional or specialist journal might actually serve you better.

Submit to STOTEN when you've got interdisciplinary environmental data, a clear "total environment" angle, and you're comfortable with the $3,900 APC if you go open access. Think twice if the work fits cleanly into a single subdiscipline where a more focused journal would give you a better audience match.

Last verified against Elsevier author guidelines and Clarivate JCR 2024 (JIF 8.0, JCI 1.50, Q1, rank 39/374 in Environmental Sciences).

Official sources set the requirements, but the remaining question is manuscript fit. The review tells you whether your paper clears the Science of The Total Environment fit check before upload, especially around missing graphical abstract or non-compliant graphical abstract, monitoring data without novelty or mechanistic insight, and scope described as total environment but limited to one compartment. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

For manuscripts targeting Science of The Total Environment, three failure modes show up in most desk-rejection outcomes among the papers we analyze.

We reviewed 100 recent published Science of The Total Environment papers when this guide was built, plus recent Manusights work reviews from authors preparing STOTEN, Water Research, Environmental Science & Technology, and Chemosphere submissions. A Manusights review checks whether your paper clears the STOTEN-specific readiness checks that the official guide cannot evaluate from a generic checklist. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee; submitted manuscripts are not used for model training.

Manusights pre-submission pattern analysis shows many desk rejections at Science of The Total Environment trace to scope or framing problems that prevent the paper from competing in this venue. The same pattern analysis often finds these cases involve insufficient methodological rigor or missing validation evidence. A related pattern is that these cases often arise from a novelty claim that outpaces the supporting data.

Missing graphical abstract or non-compliant graphical abstract

STOTEN's guide for authors states explicitly that a graphical abstract is mandatory for all submissions and specifies maximum dimensions (531 x 1328 pixels). The journal processes over 10,000 submissions per year, and handling editors return non-compliant submissions without review. We observe manuscripts submitted without a separate graphical abstract file, with graphical abstracts that reproduce a figure panel rather than summarizing the finding, and with graphical abstracts that exceed the dimension specification. These are administrative desk rejections that happen before scientific evaluation.

Check whether your STOTEN graphical abstract is submission-ready →

Monitoring data without novelty or mechanistic insight

STOTEN's editorial criteria explicitly require that papers go beyond routine monitoring. The author instructions note that papers should present "significant new knowledge" relevant to the total environment. SciRev author reports consistently identify "insufficient novelty" as a primary rejection reason. We find manuscripts reporting contamination levels at a specific site with competent but standard analytical methods, where the finding is that a pollutant is present at levels that confirm what was already expected.

The monitoring is real, the methods are sound, but the scientific contribution is a data point rather than an insight.

Check whether your STOTEN monitoring study has a real insight →

Scope described as total environment but limited to one compartment

STOTEN's name reflects a commitment to multi-compartment environmental research: the interactions among atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and lithosphere. We observe manuscripts that frame their work as "total environment" research in the cover letter, but where all experiments are conducted in one compartment (water column only, soil only) without connecting to other environmental dimensions. Editors familiar with the journal's founding mission identify these as scope mismatches, and handling editors desk-reject on that basis.

Check whether your STOTEN scope earns the total-environment frame →

Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data provides additional benchmarks when evaluating journal fit.

SciRev author-reported data confirms STOTEN's moderately fast editorial process, with initial decisions typically within 2-4 weeks. A STOTEN submission readiness check can assess your graphical abstract, novelty framing, and multi-compartment scope alignment before submission.

Editors consistently screen submissions against these patterns before sending to peer review, so addressing them before upload improves the odds that the manuscript reaches the right editorial conversation.

This guide uses Elsevier's current Science of The Total Environment guide for authors, the journal homepage, Clarivate JCR metrics, SciRev author timing benchmarks, and Manusights review patterns from environmental chemistry, toxicology, water-quality, and exposure manuscripts. We reviewed 100 recent published Science of The Total Environment papers when this guide was built, then compared those published packages with recent Manusights work reviews from authors considering STOTEN and adjacent environmental journals. We did not test a private live Editorial Manager account in this update.

Source limitations: Elsevier can update graphical abstract, artwork, ethics, and portal requirements after this review date, so authors should verify final administrative details against the official ScienceDirect guide before upload. Use this guide for the decision the official guide cannot answer: whether the paper has enough novelty, graphical clarity, and total-environment scope to justify STOTEN.

The page owns the STOTEN submission guide intent: what to prepare before upload and what editors screen before review. It should not compete with the Science of the Total Environment formatting page, cover letter page, APC page, or journal overview. Those pages answer narrower questions; this page ties the submission package together.

The main commercial-intent reader is deciding whether the manuscript is ready to submit now. For STOTEN, that decision usually turns on three checks: whether the graphical abstract is compliant, whether the study goes beyond routine monitoring, and whether the work earns the "total environment" framing instead of using it as branding.