Biomedical Signal Processing and Control

After waiting for four months, the result of the first review is out, and it has been rejected. Three reviewers provided a total of 16 comments, including shortcomings. I'm not sure if it's because my English expression is not good enough or the reviewers didn't read carefully. Some of the comments mentioned the need for additional content, which actually already exists in my paper (for example, 1. Describing the meaning of different colors in the figures, which is already explained in my paper. 2. They mentioned that my table data is incomplete and I used "-" to represent certain indicators. However, out of the 15 papers I referenced, three of them also did not provide the AUC indicator. Should I just make up the data myself?). They also raised a ridiculous point, saying that I did not reference recent literature such as RV-GAN and Bridge-Net in my paper... In the section where I compared evaluation metrics, I cited 7 papers from 2021 and 2022 (not including the review articles). Furthermore, the two papers mentioned by the reviewer have higher metrics than mine. Do I have to cite them to prove that my method is not good? The most fatal flaw mentioned is that the paper lacks innovation in the methodology, including existing methods, and the English expression is not natural. I can accept this criticism. Goodbye, I will submit to the next journal.

2021.2.4 Submission
2021.4.6 Received notification of major revision
2021.4.25 Submitted revised version
2021.5.7 Received notification of minor revision
2021.5.19 Submitted revised version
2021.5.30 Decision in process
2021.6.5 Received acceptance notification

Direction: Physiological signal processing + deep learning
Possibly due to the number of reviewers in this field, the review process was fast. The major revision incorporated feedback from three reviewers (out of five selected), as well as many language-related comments from the editor. The editor was strict and asked detailed questions. The response letter to the reviewers for the major revision was around eight or nine pages long, as there were many questions. However, the reviewers' questions were professional and directly addressed the main issues. (Almost all three reviewers had a profound understanding of deep learning. It seems that there might be many reviewers in this field, but the questions were also very professional and troublesome.)

This journal already has an impact factor in the second quartile, and the latest version from the Chinese Academy of Sciences also categorizes this journal as a second quartile journal. The quality of the journal is guaranteed, and the reviewers are indeed very professional. Of course, this is also very satisfying.