Reviews for "Signal, Image and Video Processing"

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
Signal, Image and Video Processing 17.4
weeks
19.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Accepted
Motivation: The journal did not give proper credit to an additional author working on the revision. It seems highly unethical not to give proper credit to all the contributors of the final published work. This has a negative impact on the journal reputation.
The facts: the paper needed major work as suggested by the reviewers. For this reason, it required involving a colleague to handle particular aspects of the work itself. Therefore, an authorship change was proposed (as usual in the academic community) duly justifying it according to the editor procedures. However, the editor did not bother informing authors that they did not want to accept the authorship changes until the second round of review was completed and the paper was accepted. It would have been fair to either tell the original authors that the authorship change was not allowed BEFORE sending it out for review, or to give the possibility to the original authors to exclude the contribution of the new author before the review or allow them sort out the issue in another way. Otherwise, you end up in embarrassing situation for the original authors, as it actually happened. In conclusion, it seems really unethical not to give proper credit to all the contributors of the final published work. This should definitely impact on journal reputation, this is why sites such as scirev.org exists, thanks!!!
Signal, Image and Video Processing Immediately accepted after 19.1 weeks Accepted (im.)
Signal, Image and Video Processing 17.4
weeks
18.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were ok.