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
Articles published last year
Manuscripts received last year
% accepted last year
% immediately rejected last year
Open access status
Manuscript handling fee?
Kind of complaint procedure
Two-year impact factor
Five-year impact factor

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.).

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).