Signal, Image and Video Processing

Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Signal, Image and Video Processing 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 3 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 4.0 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 4.3 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 3.0 compare →
Average number of review rounds 2.0 compare →
Quality of review reports 3.0 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 4.0 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 3.0 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 17.4 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Accepted.

The journal did not give proper credit to an additional author working on the revision. It seems highly unethical not to give proper credit to all the contributors of the final published work. This has a negative impact on the journal reputation. The facts: the paper needed major work as suggested by the reviewers. For this reason, it required involving a colleague to handle particular aspects of the work itself. Therefore, an authorship change was proposed (as usual in the academic community) duly justifying it according to the editor procedures. However, the editor did not bother informing authors that they did not want to accept the authorship changes until the second round of review was completed and the paper was accepted. It would have been fair to either tell the original authors that the authorship change was not allowed BEFORE sending it out for review, or to give the possibility to the original authors to exclude the contribution of the new author before the review or allow them sort out the issue in another way. Otherwise, you end up in embarrassing situation for the original authors, as it actually happened. In conclusion, it seems really unethical not to give proper credit to all the contributors of the final published work. This should definitely impact on journal reputation, this is why sites such as exists, thanks!!!