菜鸟啊 2023-07-18

How can I view on ScholarOne? There is no article information on my ScholarOne.

奥尼恩 2023-07-18

The new system was put "Under Review" on the same day.

H 2023-07-18

What does the new system display?

奥尼恩 2023-07-18

I have been waiting for 20 days and scholarone is still showing "submitted".

H 2023-07-18

Capital U and R

H 2023-07-18

Capital U and R, under review.

H 2023-07-18

2023.7.15 submitted
2023.7.18 displayed as "submitted" on ScholarOne
Displayed as "Under Review" on the IEEE Author Portal

ksion 2023-07-16

It took me about 10 days from submission to being in peer review. At that time, I didn't pay attention to the issue of capitalization, so I always thought it would change along with the peer review.

奥尼恩 2023-07-16

My current new system Review starts with a capital letter, but in Scholar it still shows as "submitted". I wanted to ask again, how long after you submit does it change to "in peer review" in Scholar?

ksion 2023-07-16

Based on my observation, "under review" in the new system should not have been submitted for review yet, which corresponds to the "submitted" status in Scholar. If it is submitted for review, the first letter of "review" in the new system will be capitalized, becoming "under Review," and the corresponding status in Scholar will be "peer review."

奥尼恩 2023-07-16

I have submitted a new article, and it is currently under review on the IEEE Author Portal. However, on the old ScholarOne system, it still shows as "submitted". Some people say it needs to be changed to "in peer review" to be considered for review, but I am not sure what exactly is going on.

奥尼恩 2023-07-16

On June 27, a special issue was submitted through the new submission system IEEE Author Portal. On the same day, the manuscript was assigned a manuscript number and entered the "Under Review" status. However, currently (July 16), it still shows as "submitted" on ScholarOne. Some people say it needs to be changed to "in peer review" to be considered under review. So, should we look at IEEE Author Portal or ScholarOne? I hope someone who understands can explain.

科研汤 2023-07-15

Actually, it's not necessarily adding a reviewer. In the current impetuous atmosphere of peer review, if there aren't enough minor revisions or fellow endorsements, the paper will be rejected directly without easily adding a reviewer. It's more likely that two opinions have come back, reaching the minimum decision count, but the associate editor may have sent it to multiple reviewers, waiting for the remaining opinions.

ghbj 2023-07-14

What advice did AE give?

mczhouwei 2023-07-14

The reviewing speed is quite fast, with results being available within a month. There are only two reviewers, and neither of them questioned the novelty of the work. One reviewer suggested adding some comparative methods and providing more details on the experimental description. The other reviewer believed that the experimental details were unclear and that the ablation experiments were incomplete. It's really difficult because there was no questioning of novelty, and the suggestions made were not significant. I don't understand why it was still rejected. Now it is clear that the revised manuscript is not encouraged for resubmission to TCSVT anymore, otherwise it will be directly rejected without further review.

船长cn 2023-07-14

After awaiting recommendation, it went into peer review again because additional reviewers were added for the paper and it was resubmitted.

空白~~ 2023-07-14

Hello, it has been 2 and a half months since I submitted my article. Yesterday, I saw that it was "awaiting recommendation," but today it changed to "in peer review." I'm wondering what this means. I thought "awaiting recommendation" meant that the first-round review opinions would be returned soon.

空白~~ 2023-07-14

What is the situation with "in peer review"? I have already submitted my manuscript for 2 and a half months. Yesterday, when I saw "awaiting recommendation," I thought the first-round review result would be returned soon. However, today I checked and the status changed to "in peer review."

wusuowei_m 2023-07-12

Is it still submitted on this website when returned for repair?

wusuowei_m 2023-07-12

Is it still submitted on this website?

RICARD 2023-07-11

Congratulations, basking in good luck.

1024yy 2023-07-07

2023.02.16 submit - Submitted on February 16, 2023.
2023.03.28 major revision - Major revision requested on March 28, 2023.
2023.05.02 resubmit - Resubmitted on May 2, 2023.
2023.05.27 minor revision - Minor revision requested on May 27, 2023.
2023.06.17 resubmit - Resubmitted on June 17, 2023.
2023.07.05 awaiting recommendation - Awaiting recommendation on July 5, 2023.
2023.07.06 awaiting decision - Awaiting decision on July 6, 2023.

During the first review, reviewer 1, 2, and 3 provided numerous comments. We conducted additional experiments to address them.

During the second review, reviewer 1 and 3 had no further comments, while reviewer 2 raised some methodological issues and questioned the novelty of the work.

Unfortunately, the manuscript has been rejected by IJCAI, TMM, and AAAI. Hoping for better luck.

船长cn 2023-07-07

The system has been upgraded, the new system should be under review.

CheungCong 2023-07-06

My application is also "Under Review" on the second day, and it has been five days with no update.

invincible123 2023-07-05

Hasn't this publication been a top one for a long time? Who said it just rose this year...

ghbj 2023-07-05

Possibly the top journal just promoted this year.

mczhouwei 2023-07-05

This journal is much more difficult now than before. It used to be that one minor revision was enough, but now even two major revisions are being rejected. The problem is that once it gets rejected now, I can't resubmit it again. In order to enter the revision process, I need at least three minor revisions and one major revision. You have been quite fast these past two months.

ghbj 2023-07-04

Can I resubmit after my submission is rejected?

Luckyya 2023-07-04

The first reviewer mentioned that the level of innovation is not sufficient. Additionally, they requested that I include the running time. The second reviewer also requested the inclusion of time. The third reviewer also requested the addition of time and the correction of some minor grammar errors.

Luckyya 2023-07-04

2023.4.26 submitted
2023.5.1 in peer review
2023.7.2 reject

Three reviewers, the opinions of the three reviewers are similar. The first one felt it was okay and didn't mention whether it needed minor or major revisions or if it was rejected (maybe the editor's email did not indicate if it was rejected). The second reviewer also didn't mention it. The editor's feedback was only two or three sentences, so it's uncertain if it was just two or three sentences. The third reviewer provided more detailed suggestions and recommended minor revisions.

The final result is rejection...