Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
21.3 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2024
Motivation:
The review process took longer than I expected.
5.6 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2020
9.4 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
10.1 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
The review process took around two months but the editorial department was extremely fast. Once submitted, the manuscript was immediately sent out to the reviewers, following which it was under review for the specified period of time. After receiving minor revisions from the reviewers, the manuscript was accepted the day on which the revised manuscript was submitted to the editor. One of the reviewers asked insightful questions while the other was a bit confused about the nature of the work presented in the manuscript.
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
I had a positive review experience with IEEE sensors journal in 2014.
However, in 2018, the review quality of this journal has drastically gone down.
The reviewers did not provide any valuable input on the scientific quality of the manuscript.
Instead their reviews were mostly on the lines of: "I do not think this will work"
This is a dangerous precedent being set these days. Science has to be backed by evidence and not by "personal-opinion".
The editorial board is equally responsible for their lousy attitude.
Both the reviewers had diametrically opposite views.
The reviewer 1 was extremely rude. My opinion about this journal has considerably changed. As a researcher, the first and the foremost important thing is proof of concept. The reviewers and editors have forgotten this.
However, in 2018, the review quality of this journal has drastically gone down.
The reviewers did not provide any valuable input on the scientific quality of the manuscript.
Instead their reviews were mostly on the lines of: "I do not think this will work"
This is a dangerous precedent being set these days. Science has to be backed by evidence and not by "personal-opinion".
The editorial board is equally responsible for their lousy attitude.
Both the reviewers had diametrically opposite views.
The reviewer 1 was extremely rude. My opinion about this journal has considerably changed. As a researcher, the first and the foremost important thing is proof of concept. The reviewers and editors have forgotten this.
6.1 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2017
15.1 weeks
22.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
7.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2014
Motivation:
Review process was fast. Reviewers did not understand the paper very well, it might be because it was a bit offtopic. Also, both reviewers contradicted each other.