Reviews for "IEEE Access"

Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome
IEEE Access 2.0
weeks
3.1
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process is clear and helpful.
The reviewer's comments help us to improve the manuscript.
And finally, it was accepted to publish.
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.)
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
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
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
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.