Reviews for "IEEE Sensors Journal"

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 Sensors Journal 10.1
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
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.
IEEE Sensors Journal 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
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.
IEEE Sensors Journal 6.1
weeks
12.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
IEEE Sensors Journal 15.1
weeks
22.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
IEEE Sensors Journal 7.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
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.