REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT

2020-8-31 Submission
2020-11-7 First review returned, major revisions, four reviewers, one reviewer had sharp criticism that was difficult to address, but all four reviewers had positive opinions. Each person provided many suggestions, totaling around seventy to eighty points. It took three days to organize the results of the first review...
Due to personal reasons related to the graduation defense, the revision of the paper was delayed until December when I had time to start working on it.
2020-12-27 First revision returned, the editor handled it promptly, Under Review on January 2, 2021. I thought there might be a delay due to Christmas and New Year, but there was none.
2021-1-29 Second review returned, editor accepted.

The editor worked very quickly in handling the manuscript, the review process was fast, and the reviewers' opinions were very good, although the modifications were not easy... I added additional validation experiments and analysis on my own, but I did learn a lot of knowledge from the opinions of the four reviewers. Some points were overlooked by myself, and one reviewer provided their own interpretation and analysis of a phenomenon in the discussion section, which I found very interesting. I was not aware of this knowledge before, so I added this suggestion after consulting relevant materials during the revision process. I am very grateful for the corrections and suggestions from the four reviewers and the editor. I hope the journal continues to prosper.

What I said and what you said are not actually contradictory. It is definitely worth recognizing and encouraging if a master's student can publish a good paper, even if it is in a journal with a low impact factor, as long as the work is meaningful. However, we should not exaggerate the importance of a specific journal just because we have published in it, especially when it is not that significant. I am also a beginner in the field of scientific research, and this is ultimately a journal review. What should be emphasized more is informing readers about the content and suitability of the journal, the speed of peer review, and various states. These are the useful information, aren't they? The overall level of Chinese researchers has improved, and in the field of remote sensing, Chinese researchers are either in the first or second place in terms of good journals, which can be verified. More and more people are now able to publish in good journals (some may have connections with Chinese editors or influential figures, which also reduces the difficulty). We should not be impatient, nor should we judge achievements based on journal impact factors, as this is also encouraged by the country. We should evaluate the specific work content, not just the impact factor. As for the assessment you mentioned, it is not something we can decide. We can only focus on doing good research and not be driven by impact factors.