Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.7 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2026
Motivation:
Submitted my manuscript multiple times and handling time is consistently fast, good choice if you want to build your profile fast without greatly compromising article quality.
8.7 weeks
18.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2024
Motivation:
After submission, we got our first round of reviews after around 2 months. We got some okay-ish reviews from 3 reviewers, with the editor asking us to submit a revised manuscript. It took us around 1 month to fix the issues and resubmit.
After resubmission, it took more than 2 months to get the 2nd round of reviews. In this round, we got reviews from 4 reviewers. Two of the reviews said their comments were addressed fully. The other two provided a completely new set of corrections. We are not sure whether one of these two was from the 3 who previously reviewed our manuscript. The reviews seemed to focus on completely different issues. The issues seemed fixable, but the editor decided not to pursue further submissions.
After resubmission, it took more than 2 months to get the 2nd round of reviews. In this round, we got reviews from 4 reviewers. Two of the reviews said their comments were addressed fully. The other two provided a completely new set of corrections. We are not sure whether one of these two was from the 3 who previously reviewed our manuscript. The reviews seemed to focus on completely different issues. The issues seemed fixable, but the editor decided not to pursue further submissions.
11.9 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2025
Motivation:
The review process went smoothly. My manuscript was accepted after the first round of reviews. However, the quality of the reviews was rather poor. I received 4 reviews. Two were of relatively good quality, providing some feedback on formatting and clarification of results, which helped improve the manuscript in terms of minor revisions (IEEE Access does not have revision rounds, but the minor revisions can be done before submission in the proof stage. The two other reviews were not informative, with one review indicating that the reviewer did not understand that the paper is about gas turbine engines and not industrial gas turbines.
20.7 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2025
Motivation:
First submission (≈13 weeks to decision) Two reviewers. They gave some revision comments, fair enough. We revised carefully and resubmitted.
Second submission (≈5.5 weeks to decision) Same two reviewers, plus one new reviewer who immediately accepted without comments. The other two? They acknowledged our revisions positively but then just repeated some of the same comments from the first round , even though those things had already been fixed. One example: “I recommend revising sections where absolute expressions, such as ‘first of its kind,’ are used.” , there were no such expressions in that version. Another reviewer also praised our revisions but then repeated old points. What was really suspicious was the wording, almost like the reviewer gave our paper and their comments to someone else (maybe even AI), who then replied back saying things like:
"The manuscript addresses most of the key areas highlighted in your review, incorporating significant improvements and revisions. … They propose future studies to scale up the sample and explore the impacts of longer-term interventions, addressing your concern about generalizability.”
That use of “your” made it sound like the comments weren’t even written directly for us, but were instead written about the review process by some third party.
Third submission (≈2 weeks to decision) Two reviewers. One accepted. The other (the same suspicious one from before) once again repeated earlier issues , though very fewer this time.
Fourth submission (≈21 weeks to decision) New editor. Four brand new reviewers. Suddenly everything changed , and then: straight rejection, no resubmission.
Total timeline from first submission to final rejection = about 54 weeks (1 year and 2 weeks).
Round 2 and 3 had same editor. Before the fourth submission, I even emailed the editor about the repeated reviewer comments, no reply. Instead, they just dumped it on completely new reviewers which leaded to rejection.
Second submission (≈5.5 weeks to decision) Same two reviewers, plus one new reviewer who immediately accepted without comments. The other two? They acknowledged our revisions positively but then just repeated some of the same comments from the first round , even though those things had already been fixed. One example: “I recommend revising sections where absolute expressions, such as ‘first of its kind,’ are used.” , there were no such expressions in that version. Another reviewer also praised our revisions but then repeated old points. What was really suspicious was the wording, almost like the reviewer gave our paper and their comments to someone else (maybe even AI), who then replied back saying things like:
"The manuscript addresses most of the key areas highlighted in your review, incorporating significant improvements and revisions. … They propose future studies to scale up the sample and explore the impacts of longer-term interventions, addressing your concern about generalizability.”
That use of “your” made it sound like the comments weren’t even written directly for us, but were instead written about the review process by some third party.
Third submission (≈2 weeks to decision) Two reviewers. One accepted. The other (the same suspicious one from before) once again repeated earlier issues , though very fewer this time.
Fourth submission (≈21 weeks to decision) New editor. Four brand new reviewers. Suddenly everything changed , and then: straight rejection, no resubmission.
Total timeline from first submission to final rejection = about 54 weeks (1 year and 2 weeks).
Round 2 and 3 had same editor. Before the fourth submission, I even emailed the editor about the repeated reviewer comments, no reply. Instead, they just dumped it on completely new reviewers which leaded to rejection.
5.1 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2025
Motivation:
Communication throughout the process was efficient, and feedback were timely and constructive.
8.9 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2025
Motivation:
The overall process was smooth, although the initial review took a bit longer than expected due to the winter holidays. However, it was ultimately a great experience publishing in this journal.
3.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2023
Motivation:
The review process was very smooth. I liked the reviewers' reports as they helped to improve the manuscript.
9.9 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2024
n/a
n/a
118 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
3.6 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
5 reports
Drawn back
2022
Motivation:
The review process was fast and included a good number of reviewers. However, the quality of reviews was relatively low and the process of rejecting and encouraging resubmit as new is a misleading way of handling revisions and artificially boosts the rejection rate of the journal. Also, the editor did not respond to our communication request.
3.3 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2022
2.3 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2022
2.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2022
6.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2022
Motivation:
The process was smooth. However, the review time that has been written on the journal's website is not correct. They calculate the review time from the last submission date, and many papers are faced by "reject and resubmit". The comments were not deep.
3.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2022
2.4 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2022
Motivation:
The peer-review process is relatively fast, a maximum of one month each round. However, It takes one week after submission for them to send an email regarding a video award. It seems like the review process only starts after this email. In my submission, the associated editor of the second round was not the same as the initial submission. New reviewers were assigned, which resulted in an unnecessary 3rd round. The quality of the reviewers varies, but I found their comments very useful. They had read the paper and tried their best to understand. For those in the final stage of the Ph.D., this journal is very helpful since we cannot wait, like, four months for a first feedback.
17.4 weeks
43.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Drawn back
2021
Motivation:
I cannot believe how incompetent IEEE Access were. It took us more than 11months to get through the peer review process. After the first peer review round (that took almost 4 months), we addressed the reviewers comments. After resubmitting the manuscript, the paper was went to one of the same reviewers who outright said it is acceptable for publication without any further edits. The second reviewer asked us to add one reference and to reorganize a paragraph. The editor still recommended revising and resubmission. We implemented the changes and sent it again for review. However after we sent it, the peer reviewing process took 5+ months. We contacted the journals more than 4 times and every time, we got a reply saying that the reviewers are still reviewing the changes, without further clarifications.
IEEE access usually gives the reviewers 10-14 days to review articles, so this was completely uncommon.
Also, the reasons why the editor rejected the manuscript, while all reviewers accepted it were unknown and we never got a response on why this decision was made.
After all this hassle, we finally decided to withdraw our manuscript and send it to another journal.
Very bad publication experience.
IEEE access usually gives the reviewers 10-14 days to review articles, so this was completely uncommon.
Also, the reasons why the editor rejected the manuscript, while all reviewers accepted it were unknown and we never got a response on why this decision was made.
After all this hassle, we finally decided to withdraw our manuscript and send it to another journal.
Very bad publication experience.
4.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2019
13.7 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
A bit of delay but good reviews overall
11.6 weeks
31.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
Overall, the review process took much longer than we expected and what is advertised. Most of the reviews were of good quality and understandable, with only one or two exceptions. One in particular was written in a fundamentally negative attitude that was too superficial to even understand and adress the concerns. The reviewer did not answer when contacted by the administrator for further details. It was somewhat difficult to understand the decisions of the editor because the paper was rejected with encouragement for resubmission even when all reviewers accepted the manuscript for publication, which was already the case in the first review round. Communicating the reject decision and providing only the reviews that recommend an "accept" is only of limited help. Resubmission was more effort compared to other journals because they are treated like new submissions, so that all metadata also needs to be entered again.
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
No reason given for a desk rejection. Not too happy about such an outcome.
4.0 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
This time the reviews were very professional and helped to improve the quality of the paper.
5.6 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
Received great comments. The overall period, from submission to publication, is longer then what I expected. However, its worth it
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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
2.0 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
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.
The reviewer's comments help us to improve the manuscript.
And finally, it was accepted to publish.
3.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2019
n/a
n/a
10 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).
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).
3.9 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
3.0 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2019
6.0 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
5.7 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.