Journal Title
PATTERN RECOGNITION

PATTERN RECOGN

ISSN / eISSN
0031-3203
Aims and Scope
For over 40 years, Pattern Recognition has provided the primary forum for the exchange of information on pattern recognition research among the many varied engineering, mathematical and applied professions which make up this unique field. Original papers cover all methods, techniques and applications of pattern recognition, artificial intelligence, image processing, 2-D and 3-D matching, expert systems and robotics. The Journal also includes reviews of significant developments in the field.
Subject Area

COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC

CiteScore
13.90 View Trend
CiteScore Ranking
Category Quartile Rank
Computer Science - Signal Processing Q1 #8/122
Computer Science - Software Q1 #30/404
Computer Science - Artificial Intelligence Q1 #25/301
Computer Science - Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Q1 #9/100
Web of Science Core Collection
Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)
Indexed -
Category (Journal Citation Reports 2023) Quartile
COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - SCIE Q1
ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC - SCIE Q1
H-index
180
Country/Area of Publication
ENGLAND
Publisher
Elsevier Ltd
Publication Frequency
Monthly
Year Publication Started
1968
Annual Article Volume
625
Open Access
NO
Contact
ELSEVIER SCI LTD, THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD, ENGLAND, OXON, OX5 1GB
Verified Reviews
Note: Verified reviews are sourced from across review platforms and social media globally.
Initial draft 2020.10.28
First review 2021.1.19 with comments returned. Major revisions (two months deadline for modifications). Returned on 3.18.
Second review 6.9 with comments returned. Major revisions (two months deadline for modifications). Returned on 7.12.
Third review 9.22 with comments returned. Minor revisions (one month deadline for modifications). Returned on 10.12.
Fourth review 11.18 with comments returned. Minor revisions and editorial decision (one month deadline for modifications). Returned on 11.26.
Accepted on 12.2.

In the first round, there were three reviewers named A, B, and C, all of whom were very professional. Two reviewers (A and C) requested additional experiments, while reviewer B mainly focused on the rigor of the symbol system. This was the first time seeing B's reviewing method of making annotations on the PDF, with a total of over twenty comments.

In the second round, reviewers B and C continued to focus on the rigor of the symbol system, as well as requesting detailed explanations of certain viewpoints in the main text. Reviewer B provided over twenty comments, while reviewer C suggested extending the proposed method to other tasks.

In the third round, reviewer B continued to focus on the rigor of the symbol system, as well as requesting detailed explanations of certain results in the experimental section.

In the fourth round, reviewer B made minor corrections for typos. The editor-in-chief requested reducing the references to conferences and arXiv and increasing the references to journal articles.

Overall, the quality of the article improved significantly. Encountering reviewers like B is indeed rare, and although it was challenging, it truly pushed for excellence in the quality of the article.
2021-12-21
I am very happy to have published an article in pattern recognition. First, the quality of the article impressed both myself and my supervisor. The reviewers were really professional and friendly, and they provided very constructive comments. I made revisions to the entire article based on their suggestions, which really elevated its quality. The first reviewer pointed out major shortcomings and provided improvement suggestions. The second reviewer was quite strict and believed that the novelty was limited. However, I carefully addressed their comments, compared my method with previous approaches, highlighting the differences and advantages, and resolved their concerns (I don't know why the second reviewer didn't respond during the second review). The third reviewer was definitely a kind and knowledgeable expert. They had a profound understanding of the article and provided insightful suggestions in a gentle manner. It felt like I was communicating with someone who truly understood my research field (it doesn't get any better than this). After a minor revision in the second round of review, the first and second reviewers had no further comments, while the third reviewer requested adjustments to the article's structure. Finally, it was successfully published! It was a great experience.
2022-04-10

Find Funding. Review Successful Grants.

Explore over 25,000 new funding opportunities and over 6,000,000 successful grants.

Explore

Discover Peeref hubs

Discuss science. Find collaborators. Network.

Join a conversation