Journal info (provided by editor)

% accepted last year
23% accepted
% immediately rejected last year
35% imm. rejected
Articles published last year
35 articles
Manuscripts received last year
266 manuscripts
Open access status
open access
Manuscript handling fee
none

Impact factors (provided by editor)

Two-year impact factor
n/a
Five-year impact factor
n/a

Aims and Scope

The Journal of King Saud University Computer and Information Sciences is a refereed, international journal that covers all aspects of both foundations of computer and its practical applications. The journal publishes original papers in the areas of, but not limited to
Arabization
Big Data
Bioinformatics
Biometrics
Cloud Computing
Computer Graphics
Computer Vision
Crowd Computing
Data Mining
Data Warehouse
e-Business
e-Learning
Embedded Systems
Fuzzy Systems
Grid Computing
High Performance Computing
Image Processing
Information Security
Internet of Things
Machine Learning
Mobile Computing
Natural Language Processing
Net Centric Computing
Network Protocols
Network Security
Pattern Recognition
Pervasive Computing
Robotics
Social Networks
Software Engineering
Spe

Duration of manuscript handling phases

Duration first review round
3.1 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
6.2 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
2.0 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
0.0 / 5.0 (effortless)
Average number of review reports
1.0 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
1.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
0.5 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 5.6 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
tl;dr: We could have saved so much time if one of the reviewers gave all of their suggestions in a single round. The good: We went through three rounds of revisions. Except for the first round, we got decisions within 3-4 weeks after submission. The editorial process was quick. The bad: In the first round, the reviews were very poor, only asking us to reduce the size of a certain section. We complied and hoped that the manuscript will be accepted. But in the second round, probably the manuscript was sent to different reviewers who asked us to modify a few sections and provide explanations/justifications for various claims we made throughout the paper. One can argue that it improved the quality of the paper. In the next round, one of the reviews accepted the manuscript stating all of their concerns were addressed. However, the second reviewer gave us a completely new set of suggestions (which could have been provided in the previous round, as there was no correlation between the previous suggestions and the new ones). Since we invested so much time in editing the manuscript, we decided to comply. In the next round, the editor sent the manuscript to a single reviewer and weirdly enough, the reviewer again gave us another new set of suggestions (again, which could have been provided in the previous round, as there was no correlation between the previous suggestions and the new ones). Despite that, the manuscript was accepted by the editor.