Reviews for "IEEE Access"

Journal title	Average duration			Review reports (1^st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page)	1^st rev. rnd	Tot. handling	Im. rejection	Number	Quality	Overall rating	Outcome
IEEE Access	3.0 weeks	5.0 weeks	n/a	1	5 (excellent)	4 (very good)	Accepted
IEEE Access	n/a	n/a	10.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
IEEE Access	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).
IEEE Access	3.9 weeks	3.9 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
IEEE Access	3.0 weeks	7.7 weeks	n/a	3	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
IEEE Access	6.0 weeks	9.9 weeks	n/a	3	2 (moderate)	2 (moderate)	Accepted
IEEE Access	Motivation: My paper was first rejected to address the reviewers concerns. The reviews were not of very good quality and they asked me to add their own citations. After I resubmitted, the chief editor made a mistake and rejected my paper. I had then to contact him to reverse his decision, and after a while my paper was accepted.
IEEE Access	8.6 weeks	8.6 weeks	n/a	2	2 (moderate)	2 (moderate)	Rejected
IEEE Access	Motivation: The reviewers found my paper not interesting. However, they didn't prove with references that it was not original compared to other works.
IEEE Access	5.7 weeks	5.7 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	1 (bad)	Rejected
IEEE Access	Motivation: The journal has a binary peer-review. I received two reviews that were different. The first reviewer accepted the paper and the second one rejected. The editor rejected the paper, without giving the opportunity of a re-submission, which I didn't understand due to the comments of the first reviewer. The main reason was that is was the sequence of another paper that was not already published.