Science of the Total Environment Time to First Decision

STOTEN routes submissions through Elsevier's Editorial Manager system. The visible status labels reflect the editorial pipeline:

"With Editor" is the initial-screen stage. A Subject Editor (one of ~50 across environmental subdisciplines) conducts scope assessment, methodology screen, and English-language quality check. Roughly 30-40% of STOTEN submissions are desk-rejected at this stage, primarily for scope mismatch (the paper is fundamentally environmental engineering rather than environmental science) or insufficient quantitative analysis.

"Under Review" means the paper has passed the Subject Editor's screen and is with two reviewers. STOTEN typically aims for two reviewers; if first-choice reviewers decline, recruitment can extend the wait by 1-2 weeks.

"Reviews Completed" means both reviewer reports have arrived and the Subject Editor is weighing them. This is usually a short stage (1-2 weeks).

"Decision in Process" means the editor has decided and the formal decision letter is being prepared. This is days, not weeks.

If your paper sits at "With Editor" for more than 3 weeks, the most likely explanation is Subject Editor workload or routing to a backup editor. After 4 weeks at "With Editor", a polite inquiry is appropriate.

Three structural factors drive the timeline:

Submission volume. STOTEN is one of the largest environmental science journals in the world, processing over 20,000 submissions per year. The Subject Editor structure scales reasonably well, but high-submission months can push initial-screen wait from 1 week to 3 weeks.

Subject-specific reviewer pools. STOTEN covers a wide range of environmental subdisciplines: aquatic chemistry, atmospheric chemistry, biogeochemistry, soil science, ecotoxicology, microplastics, emerging contaminants, climate science, and environmental policy. Reviewer pools for narrower subfields (e.g., specific contaminant transformation pathways, advanced statistical applications to environmental data) can be small enough that recruitment adds 2-3 weeks.

Reporting-standard expectations. STOTEN follows specific reporting expectations for environmental data: detection limits, quality assurance/quality control statements, environmental relevance framing, and proper handling of below-detection-limit values. Papers that omit these elements generate first-round revision requests focused on reporting completeness rather than science, extending the cycle.

If your paper has been at "Under Review" for 4-8 weeks, that is normal. The more useful calibration:

• Under Review less than 3 weeks: Reviewers may still be confirming or starting reports. No read.
• 3-6 weeks: Reports often arrive in this window.
• 6-9 weeks: Decision is imminent if both reports are in.
• 9+ weeks: Reviewer recruitment difficulty or split reviewer opinions. Inquiry appropriate.

Wait at least 10-12 weeks from submission before contacting the STOTEN editorial office. When you do:

• Use the Editorial Manager messaging system or email the assigned Subject Editor
• Reference your manuscript number
• Keep the message brief: request a status update, note when you submitted, name the assigned Subject Editor if visible

One follow-up per 4-week interval after the 12-week mark is reasonable. STOTEN's editorial office can prompt unresponsive reviewers but cannot bypass them. For papers in narrower subfields, the office may explain the delay and provide an updated estimate.

• Reject: Usually with both reviewer reports attached. STOTEN editors weigh reviewer judgment heavily; a clean reject typically reflects substantive scientific or scope objections.
• Major revision: Most common at STOTEN. Expect requests to clarify methods, add quality-control statements, expand environmental-relevance discussion, or address specific reviewer questions.
• Minor revision: Common for well-prepared manuscripts; usually 2-4 weeks turnaround for the second round.
• Accept: Possible but uncommon as a first response.

Before submitting a revision with significant new analyses, a Science of the Total Environment submission readiness check can assess whether the response addresses the reviewers' core environmental-science concerns.

Of the environmental science manuscripts our team reviewed before STOTEN submission, three named rejection patterns generate the most consistent desk returns. Subject Editors at STOTEN consistently reject papers on these patterns within the 1-2 week initial screen, and SciRev community data for Science of the Total Environment aligns with what we observe in our internal analysis. The hidden filter authors most often miss is whether the paper reads as environmental science or environmental engineering. Editorial culture at STOTEN demands that environmental relevance be explicit and quantitative.

Quality-control reporting that omits detection limits or QA/QC framing. STOTEN requires that analytical methods report detection limits, quantitation limits, and quality-control results (blanks, recoveries, replicates) in the methods section. We observe that papers omitting these elements generate desk returns or first-round reviewer requests for "complete QA/QC reporting." Subject Editors check this routinely before assigning reviewers. Papers that include a dedicated QA/QC subsection clear this screen and move directly to scientific review.

Environmental relevance stated implicitly rather than quantitatively. STOTEN editors and reviewers consistently flag papers where environmental relevance is asserted but not quantified. A paper measuring a contaminant in a single matrix without comparison to environmental concentrations, regulatory thresholds, or fate-modeling implications is at risk of "lack of environmental significance" feedback. We see this most often in papers that report excellent analytical chemistry but stop short of the environmental-process framing. Papers that include at least one comparison to a reference environmental concentration or regulatory limit move faster through review.

Manuscripts that are fundamentally environmental engineering. STOTEN's scope is environmental science: contaminant fate, transport, transformation, and exposure pathways. Papers focused on treatment-process optimization, reactor design, or engineering kinetics without an environmental fate or exposure dimension are routinely redirected to Chemical Engineering Journal, Journal of Hazardous Materials, or Water Research. We observe that authors targeting STOTEN with engineering-heavy manuscripts add 2-4 weeks to the timeline because the desk return arrives only after the Subject Editor's full read. A STOTEN submission readiness check can identify whether the paper's environmental-science framing is sufficient before submission.