Science of the Total Environment 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and When to Expect a Decision

STOTEN editors are evaluating:

• does the paper fit the "total environment" scope (interactions between atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, anthroposphere)?
• is the graphical abstract submitted and clear (mandatory for STOTEN)?
• are environmental-health or environmental-systems implications visible?
• is the methodology complete for the study type (chemistry, ecology, exposure, modeling)?

A desk rejection usually means scope fit, missing graphical abstract, or methodology gaps. The editor may suggest a sister Elsevier environmental journal.

Editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript, figures, supplementary information, graphical abstract (mandatory), highlights, cover letter, COI, ethics where applicable, data-availability statement.

The handling editor reads the paper, evaluates total-environment scope and methodology, and decides whether to invite reviewers.

The editor invites at least two reviewers per Elsevier policy, often three for cross-disciplinary papers. Finding reviewers in niche subfields (microplastic ecotoxicology, environmental epidemiology) can extend the timeline.

Once reviewers accept, peer review typically takes 4 to 10 weeks. STOTEN reviewers evaluate methodology rigor, environmental-implications framing, and data quality.

After reports return, the editor synthesizes them. The 6-to-10-week median first-decision time captures the full pipeline.

If you have been Under Review for more than 10 weeks with no update, a polite inquiry through the Elsevier portal is reasonable.

The most common outcome after peer review. STOTEN rejections usually cite scope mismatch ("would fit Environmental Pollution or Environment International better"), missing controls, weak environmental-implications framing, or methodology issues.

STOTEN revisions are usually substantial. Major revisions are typically due within 60 days; minor revisions within 30 days.

Possible on first round for methodologically clean and clearly in-scope work; more commonly follows one round of revision.

• Rejection within 1 to 5 days: Administrative issue (missing graphical abstract, declarations) or immediate scope mismatch.
• Rejection within 7 to 14 days: Desk rejection. Editor concluded the paper does not meet STOTEN's total-environment scope or methodology bar.
• Still Under Review after 3 weeks: Good sign. Editor decided to proceed to peer review.
• Still Under Review after 10 weeks: Reviewer delay. Polite inquiry is appropriate.
• Status changes to "Required Reviews Complete": Reports are in; expect decision within 1 to 2 weeks.

The waiting is informative: if no decision in 3 weeks, you have likely cleared the desk screen. The most common anxiety is the 8-to-10-week window which is at or near the median.

Three failure patterns generate the most consistent rejections.

Scope too narrow for "total environment." STOTEN explicitly publishes cross-compartment environmental research. Pure ecology, pure chemistry, or pure environmental engineering papers without bridging context often get rejected. The fix is to surface inter-compartment connections explicitly.

Graphical abstract weak or missing. STOTEN requires a graphical abstract and reviews it carefully. We see papers submitting weak graphical abstracts that get returned for revision. The fix is to design the graphical abstract intentionally with conceptual diagram + quantified result.

Environmental implications buried. The discussion sometimes describes findings without articulating consequences for management or policy. The fix is to add an explicit implications paragraph naming the decision the finding affects.