Science of the Total Environment Submission Process

STOTEN requires a graphical abstract for all submissions. This is a single, concise visual summary of the main finding. It should communicate the environmental relevance at a glance. Editors use it alongside the abstract to assess scope during triage.

A missing graphical abstract will cause the manuscript to be returned before editorial review begins.

Go to Editorial Manager, log in, and start a new submission for Science of the Total Environment. Select the article type: Research Article, Short Communication, Review, or other.

Provide the title, abstract, and keywords. The abstract and title should make the environmental relevance clear. "Effect of X on Y in Z conditions" is weaker than "Effect of X on Y: implications for environmental compartment and ecological risk."

3 to 5 highlights summarizing the key findings. Each should be concise and results-oriented. Emphasize the environmental significance, not just the technical result.

Upload the mandatory graphical abstract as a separate file. It should visually communicate the main finding and its environmental context in one image.

Upload the manuscript as an editable file (not PDF). Figures go as separate high-resolution files. Supporting data go as supplementary files.

CRediT author contributions, competing interests, data availability, funding, AI use declaration, and ethics declarations. All required. The journal uses American or British English consistently but not a mix of both.

Submit and monitor progress through Editorial Manager.

The handling editor evaluates the manuscript for scope, quality, and environmental relevance. STOTEN's scope is interdisciplinary environmental science, and editors screen for genuine cross-compartment thinking.

Editors are asking:

• does this paper address a real environmental question involving multiple spheres (air, water, soil, biota)?
• does the study advance fundamental understanding, not just report data?
• is the work a field study (preferred) or a lab study with clear environmental connection?
• are the methods appropriate for the environmental question being asked?
• does the paper connect chemical, biological, and physical processes?

In our pre-submission review work on Science of the Total Environment submissions, three patterns show up repeatedly in papers that look plausible on the surface but struggle against the journal's actual scope filter.

The paper studies one compartment and gestures at "the total environment" later. STOTEN's current guide for authors is explicit that studies advancing understanding across multiple spheres receive primary consideration. We keep seeing manuscripts where the title and abstract promise environmental breadth, but the body never really moves beyond one compartment, one pollutant system, or one regional dataset.

The lab work is careful, but the environmental bridge is still rhetorical. The journal now says field studies have preference and that laboratory experiments need significant methodological or mechanistic advance with a clear environmental connection. A common failure mode is strong adsorption, degradation, or toxicity data in controlled conditions without a believable link to real exposures, transport, mixtures, or field-relevant behavior.

The manuscript reports data instead of resolving an environmental question. STOTEN explicitly filters out descriptive, repetitive, or limited-novelty studies. We regularly see monitoring or remediation papers that accumulate measurements competently but never sharpen the hypothesis, mechanism, or cross-system implication enough for a broad environmental journal.

STOTEN explicitly states that field studies receive primary consideration. Lab experiments are accepted, but they must demonstrate either significant methodological advances or new mechanistic understanding with a clear path to environmental relevance.

A lab study showing that a material adsorbs a pollutant is not enough. The study needs to show why that matters in a real environmental context: what concentrations are realistic, what competing factors exist, and what the implications are for actual remediation or risk.

Papers that pass triage go to 2 to 3 reviewers. STOTEN uses single-anonymous review.

Reviewers evaluate:

• environmental significance and novelty
• methodological rigor and appropriateness
• quality of data analysis and statistical treatment
• whether conclusions are proportional to the evidence
• connection to broader environmental processes

References should follow Elsevier numbered style with DOIs included. There is no fixed reference limit, but 40 to 60 references is typical for a research article.

• Accept: uncommon on first round.

• Minor revision: small changes. Respond within 30 days.

• Major revision: substantive concerns. 30 to 60 days to revise. Returns to reviewers.

• Reject: the paper does not meet STOTEN standards.

• Transfer: Elsevier may suggest transfer to a related journal (Environmental Pollution, Chemosphere, Journal of Environmental Management) with reviewer context.

• Submitted to Journal: your manuscript is in the system
• With Editor: handling editor is reviewing or assigning reviewers
• Under Review: sent to external reviewers
• Required Reviews Complete: reviewers returned reports
• Decision in Process: editor preparing decision
• Revise: revision requested

If "With Editor" persists beyond 3 weeks, a polite inquiry is reasonable.

The most common triage failure. STOTEN is not a chemistry journal or a materials journal. A study showing pollutant removal in a flask needs to explain why it matters environmentally: realistic concentrations, competing ions, temperature ranges, and what happens at scale.

The graphical abstract is mandatory. Submissions without one are returned before editorial review. Prepare it alongside the manuscript, not as an afterthought.

STOTEN values studies that connect multiple environmental compartments. A study of soil contamination that also discusses groundwater transport and ecosystem effects is stronger than one that stays in a single compartment. Frame the work broadly.

Lab-scale results showing high removal efficiency do not automatically translate to field-scale remediation. Avoid claims about practical application that the data do not support. Editors and reviewers at STOTEN are sensitive to this gap.