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

Before the paper reaches external reviewers, a STOTEN handling editor evaluates whether the interdisciplinary environmental scope and environmental significance warrant STOTEN's editorial slots. About 40 to 50 percent of submissions are desk-rejected at this stage.

A desk rejection most often means the handling editor concluded that the work lacks interdisciplinary environmental scope (STOTEN explicitly requires papers spanning multiple environmental disciplines, not single-discipline work), or would fit better at a sister Elsevier environmental journal (Environmental Pollution for pollution-focused, Chemosphere for broader environmental chemistry, Total Environment Advances for shorter-format).

• Day 0 to 3, Elsevier Editorial Manager administrative processing: The STOTEN editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, Supporting Information with environmental data and analytical method validation, Elsevier template formatting, cover letter directed to the editor naming the interdisciplinary environmental contribution, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics-statement documentation, and data-availability statement.

• Days 1 to 7, technical check (language, scope, originality): Elsevier's technical check screens the submission for language quality, scope fit, and originality via plagiarism check. Submissions that need English language improvements, are out of scope, or present excessive duplication with published sources can be desk rejected before editor review.

• Days 3 to 14, STOTEN handling editor desk screen: The handling editor reads the paper and evaluates interdisciplinary environmental scope, environmental significance, methodology rigor, and STOTEN subspecialty routing.

• Days 5 to 14, internal Elsevier STOTEN editorial discussion (parallel for ambiguous cases): Ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the Elsevier STOTEN editorial team, where peer handling editors weigh in on whether the paper would fit better at STOTEN or at sister Elsevier environmental journals. This consultation runs alongside the desk-screen and adds 3 to 5 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.

• Days 14 to 28, external reviewer recruitment: STOTEN handling editors typically invite a minimum of 2 (typically 2 to 3) reviewers with environmental expertise. Reviewer recruitment typically takes 7 to 14 days.

• Days 14 to 70, active peer review (6 to 10 week first decision): Once 2 to 3 reviewers agree to review, the typical STOTEN peer-review cycle lasts 4 to 8 weeks per reviewer. Reviewers are asked to evaluate interdisciplinary environmental scope, environmental significance, methodology rigor, and reproducibility.

• Day 70 onward, editorial synthesis and decision: After reports return, the handling editor synthesizes them. Total submission-to-acceptance commonly runs 4 to 8 months for successful papers.

• Rejection within 1 to 7 days: Technical check rejection (language, scope, originality) per Elsevier policy.

• Rejection within 7 to 14 days: STOTEN handling editor desk rejection for interdisciplinary-scope mismatch per the 40 to 50 percent figure.

• Still Under Review after 3 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the STOTEN handling editor desk screen.

• Still Under Review after 10 weeks: Reviewer-recruitment or reviewer-report delay. A polite inquiry via the Editorial Manager portal is appropriate.

• Status changes to "Decision in Process": Reports are in; expect a decision within 2 to 3 weeks.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from STOTEN authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 7 weeks at Under Review puts you in the normal middle of STOTEN's 6 to 10 week first-decision distribution. Reports may already be in editorial synthesis with the handling editor preparing the recommendation. Most reviewer-driven delays come from reviewer-recruitment timing for interdisciplinary environmental subspecialty experts rather than slow reviews.

If the portal still says Under Review at the 10-week mark, the most likely explanation is that one of the assigned reviewers asked for an extension and the handling editor granted it. This is normal practice at STOTEN.

What you should NOT do during the 7-to-10-week window is email the editorial office. STOTEN handling editors are working academic environmental researchers managing 80+ active papers per quarter; an inquiry at 7 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.

If your STOTEN paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the reviewers and handling editor cited:

Environmental Pollution (Elsevier) is the natural Elsevier pollution-focused cascade.

Chemosphere (Elsevier) is the Elsevier broader environmental chemistry cascade.

Total Environment Advances (Elsevier) is the Elsevier shorter-format cascade.

Environmental Science & Technology (ACS) is the external ACS environmental flagship. ES&T uses ACS Paragon Plus at ACS journal page; editorial contact esthag@acs.org.

Water Research (Elsevier) is the Elsevier water-treatment cascade. Water Research uses Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager submission portal; editorial contact wr@elsevier.com.

Journal of Hazardous Materials (Elsevier) is the Elsevier hazardous-materials cascade. J Hazard Mater uses Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager submission portal; editorial contact hazmat@elsevier.com.

Elsevier asks reviewers at STOTEN to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.

Across Science of the Total Environment manuscripts, the risky papers usually have a real environmental dataset but not yet a convincing "total environment" argument.

Of the 50+ manuscripts our team reviewed for STOTEN, Environmental Science & Technology, Water Research, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Environmental Pollution, Chemosphere, and adjacent environmental journals, this is the failure pattern we see most often: the manuscript has technically useful measurements, but the abstract, figures, and methods do not show why the result belongs in an interdisciplinary environmental journal.

Use this page to decide what to improve during the Under Review window rather than treating the Elsevier status label as the only signal. Full Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train AI on customer manuscripts.

Single-compartment framing weakens the STOTEN fit

Science of the Total Environment rewards papers that connect environmental compartments, not manuscripts that simply measure one pollutant, organism, site, or model in isolation. We often see abstracts that mention atmosphere, hydrosphere, soil, organisms, or human exposure in broad language while the evidence only supports one compartment. The stronger STOTEN submissions make the integration visible: source, transport, exposure, ecological consequence, human relevance, policy implication, or treatment pathway.

If the title and first figure could fit Environmental Pollution, Chemosphere, or a narrow monitoring journal with almost no edits, run a Check whether your STOTEN interdisciplinary scope is clear ->.

Sampling and analytical validation are not reviewer-auditable

The most common STOTEN reviewer concern is not "more data" in the abstract. It is an audit trail problem: sampling locations are underdescribed, field conditions are not tied to the inference, QA/QC is buried, detection limits are unclear, controls are thin, or statistical models do not match the environmental question. Reviewers need to see how a table, map, or concentration profile supports the claimed environmental implication.

Before revision, connect each major claim to the exact sample design, analytical validation, statistical test, uncertainty statement, and data-availability location. If that chain is scattered across captions and supplementary files, use a Check if your STOTEN methods package is reviewer-ready ->.

Elsevier environmental routing is planned too late

STOTEN rejections are often usable because the paper may still fit Environmental Pollution, Chemosphere, Total Environment Advances, Water Research, Journal of Hazardous Materials, or an ACS environmental title. The weak plan is to wait for a reject decision and then choose a fallback from memory. The stronger plan is to know before submission which claim would be edited for each destination: pollution burden, water-treatment performance, hazardous-material mechanism, environmental chemistry, or interdisciplinary total-environment impact.

If your fallback plan is only a list of journals, run a Check whether your STOTEN routing plan is defensible ->.

This page was created from Elsevier's public STOTEN guide for authors at ScienceDirect author instructions, Elsevier Editorial Manager documentation (6 to 10 week first decision, 2 to 3 reviewers after editorial screening, interdisciplinary environmental scope as the primary desk-screen criterion), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with STOTEN-targeted manuscripts.

For the environmental landscape beyond STOTEN, see Environmental Pollution (Elsevier pollution-focused), Chemosphere (Elsevier broader environmental chemistry), Total Environment Advances (Elsevier shorter-format), Environmental Science & Technology (ACS environmental), Water Research (water-treatment), Journal of Hazardous Materials (hazardous materials), and Nature Sustainability (top sustainability).

The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is interdisciplinary environmental scope (STOTEN), pollution-focused (Environmental Pollution), broader environmental chemistry (Chemosphere), shorter-format (Total Environment Advances), top ACS environmental (ES&T), water-treatment (Water Research), hazardous materials (J Hazard Mater), or top Nature Portfolio sustainability (Nature Sustainability).

Reviewers at STOTEN typically draw from 2 to 3 environmental subspecialty experts under the Elsevier single-anonymized model. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any reviewer sees them, and preparing a response template that addresses both interdisciplinary scope and methodology rigor accelerates revision rounds substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the STOTEN interdisciplinary-environmental bar before submission, our Science of the Total Environment pre-submission diagnostic flags the interdisciplinary-scope and methodology weaknesses most likely to surface in the handling editor desk screen.