Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of IEEE Access has not yet provided information for this page.

Space for journal cover image
Issues per year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
Manuscripts received last year
n/a
% accepted last year
n/a
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Manuscript handling fee?
n/a
Kind of complaint procedure
n/a
Two-year impact factor
n/a
Five-year impact factor
n/a

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 6 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 1.3 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 2.2 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection 10 days compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 2.4 compare →
Average number of review rounds 1.4 compare →
Quality of review reports 3.0 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 2.5 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 2.8 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

Outcome: Rejected (im.).

Motivation:
Don't waste your time for the IEEE Access!! It was the worst submission experience in my 7-years career. We have submitted paper to the Special Section about machine learning. The title of our paper was a perfect match for the scope listed in call for papers. Imagine our surprise when we have received the "out of scope" reject. We have asked for an explanation, and after a month they have repeated that the paper is "out of scope". We have then asked for an explanation once more, and after a week they have replied that the reject decision is reverted (without explaining anything) and the paper will be considered (reviewed). After 3-weeks we have received the decision - reject without possibility to resubmit. There were two reviews. One quite constructive and merit (and suggesting the resubmission). The second one, on the other hand, was completely incorrect: the reviewer said that only binary classification was performed, while we have done multi-class classification (10 experiments) and binary classification (2 experiments). Furthermore, the reviewer said data set with more than 5k observations should be used, meanwhile we have used 8 data set with far more than 5k observations! There were 3-4 more comments like this (completely wrong or very general).