Earth Notes: Journal and Conference Submission Process and Timelines (2026)

Updated 2026-10-20.
What does 'normal' or success look like when submitting a paper? #PhD #research
For a session of Journal Club at the University of Surrey Centre for Environment and Sustainability (CES), we look at how varied in timing and process it can be getting a paper published in a journal or to presentation at a conference. This is based on experiences of CES staff and students.

Some years into my (part-time) PhD, I remain astonished that even seasoned academics are a bit unsure about how a paper submission will go. The time taken to get a journal paper published can be from a few months to several years for example. The system seems a bit chaotic to say the least!

: Contrasting Referee Reports

Consistency in reviewer responses would increase confidence in the system. When applying for funding from Innovate UK as I recall typically each request would get about five reviews of which four were sane and thoughtful and one ... was maybe reading a different submission?

One paper received two slightly differing reviews, including the words:

I can say unequivocally that this paper should be rejected with no encouragement for resubmission.

and:

I have no quibbles and therefore recommend publication unreservedly.

: SWEET Delays

James S reports for his recent paper Environmental impact ramifications of replacing added sugar with non-nutritive sweeteners in a high-calorie Dutch diet: the SWEET project:

Submitted .

I gave a nudge for info on .

First feedback given on .

Resubmitted .

Final decision given on .

: Grid Flex Paper Example

For my paper [hart-davis2026flex] recently published in Academia Green Energy open-access journal, derived from a public talk via a local conference poster, the timeline was as follows.

It took the best part of a month to (in tandem with the poster) bring the work up to be a plausible academic journal paper, and then another three months of revisions and proofing, from that throw-away 30-second Pint-of-Science thought!

: submitted

I submitted a journal article Grid Flex Rhymes With Derivatives Trading: an Observation to a journal that I had not seen before, nominally for a special edition. The APC (Article Publishing Charge) fees and deadline were waived!

According to the journal's process and timings, if my paper is accepted, it may take until to be published.

: one review

As of today the on-line progress tracker shows: One reviewer has reviewed your manuscript

: three reviews

As of today: Three reviewers have reviewed your manuscript

: with the Editor

As of today: The Editor is reviewing feedback from reviewers

: first round of revisions requested

I am pleased that all the reviewers found some merit in this paper. The review challenges are thoughtful and interesting. The revision levels requested were 2 minor, 1 major. I have some work to do! But a week away at a festival first.

As of today: Complete your revisions by Tue, Aug 11, 2026

I pointed out that I was away for a week and this became 18th Aug.

: submitted revisions

That was a huge chunk of work. I should try not to casually assign myself months' labour on a paper idea whim again, unless I really want to...

Second round of revisions

That was fast! Reviewer 3 gave further response today!

I was first asked for response by 20th August, extended to 24th Aug, though I am away at Green Man from 20th to 24th, then to the 26th...

: resubmitted

My second music festival this year slowed me down for this one, but it is in: Reviewers are assessing your revisions.

Soon: The Editor is reviewing the feedback from reviewers!

Late morning: The Editorial Office is reviewing your revisions...

: third round of revisions

Some very specific points from the Editor and Editorial Office, one of which I was worrying about anyway a little...

: submitted

I was not able to respond to Reviewer 3's remaining concerns, and keep the paper within its intended original scope.

That is uncomfortable, and may result in a rejection: we will see.

And the status has moved on to: Reviewers are assessing your revisions.

Which by the time I checked the next morning was: The Editorial Office is reviewing your revisions.

: accepted!

Early afternoon: Congratulations! Your manuscript was accepted for publication.

: copy back for proofreading

Arrived mid-morning from the journal...

: proofs returned

Three days of proof merging and corrections, updates returned this evening! Just checking/correcting the bibliography took the whole first day!

: back with me

Remaining minor points of date formats, linking out to repositories, and the structured abstract.

Resubmitted after a quick check from my supervisor, and a hasty fix to some graphics shading that seems unreliable under macOS 27.

: detritus

Back and forth with a few more tiny issues such as another image tweak, and a quote that came from an email circular having to be redone...

: published!

Your manuscript was published on Mon, Sep 21, 2026.

: available to add to my Google Scholar publications

This may have come from me adding it manually to my ORCID list, for example because it contains the abstract whereas the journal's downloadable BibTeX citation entry does not, or may have come direct from the journal's data feed.

: citation data from the journal?

It looks as if the citation data has propagated from the journal to my Google Scholar profile, granting my previous paper a self-citation!

References