Guass fuzzy 2023-03-07

Is it not normal for a mathematics journal to take 10 months for the first review? I don't understand, just talking nonsense.

aaa2 2022-08-22

Is there no "under review" in the first trial?

M_ZY 2022-03-18

The two reviewers gave positive feedback and were very enthusiastic. However, the Associate Editor (AE) mentioned that the framework structure is incorrect and theoretically unacceptable. But just a slight modification can resolve this issue. In the past, articles have been handled in a similar way, so it is possible that the AE is being overly meticulous. However, the review period is still acceptable; two and a half months is not too long.

Guass fuzzy 2021-10-28

FSS is becoming increasingly difficult to publish. The submission was made in November and received two reviewers who are clearly experts in the field. They provided constructive feedback and suggestions.
2020-11-28 Submitted to Journal
2020-11-30 With Editor
2021-5-28 Major Revision
2021-6-8 With Editor
2021-6-11 Under Review
2021-7-1 Under Review
2021-10-27 Required Reviewer Completed
2021-10-27 Decision in Process (Minor Revision)
2021-10.28 Revision Submitted to Journal
2021-10-28 Editor Invited
2021-10-28 Decision in Process
2021-10-28 Accept

10+SCI 2021-08-08

Both IEEE TFS and TFS are top journals in the field of fuzzy control. The reviewers' comments are very professional, indicating that they are leading experts in the field. After making thorough revisions according to the reviewers' comments, the revised manuscript should be submitted three months later, and acceptance will be confirmed two months after that. The timeline is provided for reference: 2021.1.08 (submission) - 3.08 (major revisions) - 6.08 (submission of revised manuscript) - 2021.8.08 (Accept).

Guass fuzzy 2021-07-08

The two reviewers are both influential figures in the field and have high expectations for innovation. They were quite satisfied with the revised manuscript and have granted acceptance.

aidooooo 2021-03-30

Tragedy of one year and twenty-seven days for the first review. Two reviewers, R#1: doubts about the novelty of the proposed method; R#2: deletion of some non-essential elements.

(Basic) I have previously published a top-tier paper in this emerging field, and this article is also based on my previous work (identifying the shortcomings of existing methods in a certain aspect and comparing them with existing algorithms; the entire article analyzes and discusses the novelty of the proposed method).

Overall, both reviewers are talking nonsense (the editor's choice of reviewers is not from the relevant field of expertise), and they are only pointing out trivial issues, and most importantly, they are wrong. I want to ask, can you understand the article? If you don't understand, it's okay, don't make baseless comments and give misleading guidance. What are you questioning? Haven't seen it, so shut up. Also, the editor's handling time is also disappointing. Think twice before submitting!!!!

ren fangmin 2021-03-23

It has been over seven months since the submission, and it is still in the "under review" status. Sigh, I want to remind them to review it, but I heard that pushing too hard might lead to rejection.