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 | Year |
IEEE Access | 4.0 weeks |
4.6 weeks |
n/a | 4 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2020 |
Motivation: This time the reviews were very professional and helped to improve the quality of the paper. | ||||||||
IEEE Access | 5.6 weeks |
7.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2020 |
Motivation: Received great comments. The overall period, from submission to publication, is longer then what I expected. However, its worth it | ||||||||
IEEE Access | 6.0 weeks |
6.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 1 (bad) |
1 (bad) |
Drawn back | 2020 |
Motivation: 1/3 accept: short but okay comments and suggestions, 2/3 reject with resubmit: one-liners saying that the paper needs a lot of work without specifying any concrete changes, missing references or problems that need to be addressed | ||||||||
IEEE Access | 2.0 weeks |
3.1 weeks |
n/a | 4 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2020 |
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 | 2019 |
IEEE Access | n/a | n/a | 10.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2019 |
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 | 2019 |
IEEE Access | 3.0 weeks |
7.7 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2019 |
IEEE Access | 6.0 weeks |
9.9 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 2 (moderate) |
2 (moderate) |
Accepted | 2018 |
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 | 2018 |
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 | 2018 |
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. |