主观臆断 2021-12-29

Submitted on September 1, 2021
Rejected and resubmitted on October 18, 2021
Resubmitted on November 8, 2021
Accepted on December 23, 2021

Kingw2 2021-12-23

Personally, I don't think we need to pay attention to the so-called partitions of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. These partitions are purely based on the impact factor and have no other criteria. The higher the impact factor, the higher the partition. What truly matters to researchers is the recognition from their peers. In the field of remote sensing, the best papers are still preferred by colleagues from well-known institutions internationally, such as those that publish models, algorithms, and products. This is a long-established reputation and influence. It is not difficult for TGRS to improve its impact factor. Firstly, they can open up IEEE download permissions, allowing everyone to access the papers. Secondly, they can include reviews. However, these are just techniques to improve the impact factor. In fact, most top IEEE journals do not have high impact factors, only a few do, but it does not affect peer evaluation.

没有名字_无名 2021-12-20

What kind of journal is Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, all of its subcategories are in Zone 1, and its classification by the Chinese Academy of Sciences is a shameless joke!!!

没有名字_无名 2021-12-20

There is no Zone 1 in the upgraded sub-category partition, which is unfair. Is this intentionally suppressing?

Jinx1993 2021-12-16

Very good journal, two articles have been accepted. The first article was accepted after major revisions, which took two and a half months. The second article was accepted after major revisions and minor revisions, which took six months. Overall, the review speed is super fast, and the first-round comments were received in less than a month. The opinions provided by the experts are also reasonable and impressive! Impressed! Impressed!

freeman123 2021-12-15

Remote sensing, infrared, thermodynamics data, image object detection

freeman123 2021-12-14

It has been 50 days, and it is still undergoing review.

Nature后备队 2021-12-14

May I ask which attribute you have chosen?

科研小白 2021-11-25

Thank you for your support, which indicates that the modifications have been made as requested. Your help has been greatly appreciated, and so on.

tutuwei 2021-11-25

I would like to ask, when replying to the review comments, should we also reply to the summarizing comments from the associate editor? Also, are there any formatting requirements for the document replying to the review comments? Should it be in the same format as the main text template?

geminipp 2021-11-22

2021-9-25 Submission
2021-10-30 Major revision
2021-11-1 Rework
2021-11-21 Direct employment

In the first article, Trans, was accepted before graduation, which can be considered as a recognition of the work during the master's period. The reviewers' comments were very positive, and it was a pleasant surprise to receive good reviews from peers on the first submission.

jianguopu 2021-11-21

You are still a student who goes in and out of the door. The quality of a journal cannot be judged solely by its impact factor. You should look at the most influential papers in your field (such as algorithm, model, theory, rules, etc.) and see which journal they are published in. In terms of heritage, influence, and peer evaluation, TGRS is far better than JAG. TGRS has been the best journal in the field of remote sensing for a long time, especially in the field of microwave remote sensing. In recent years, due to the reasons of not publishing reviews and many universities not purchasing IEEE copyrights, it has suffered some disadvantages in terms of impact factor. However, those in the field still understand its significance.

没有名字_无名 2021-11-21

Which one is better, this journal or the International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation?

Jun_moxiao 2021-11-20

In remote sensing field, it has been 35 days and it is still undergoing review.

科研小白 2021-11-18

Completed and submitted in January, accepted over a month later.

弓长广文武 2021-11-13

At that time, I had four reviewers. One directly added review comments in the original text, while two gave detailed suggestions in emails. The suggestions given were quite positive. None of these three experts mentioned major or minor revisions, but the last one explicitly suggested rejecting the manuscript. The associate editor suggested transferring the submission. Your situation might be that the associate editor made the final decision based on the reviewers' opinions.

科研小白 2021-11-12

The first review took over a month, with two reviewers and extensive revisions.

惊岚 2021-11-04

Looking for directions, I have been unable to find a reviewer for the past 10 months.

普通小程 2021-11-03

It has been almost two months, and there hasn't been a first trial.

简白 2021-11-02

It has been over a month since undergoing review. Isn't this journal supposed to be fast?

tutuwei 2021-10-24

I would like to ask, my paper was rejected and given a chance to resubmit. But I only saw the resubmission request from the associate editor, while the other three reviewers only provided detailed comments. I did not see any decisive opinions from each reviewer as mentioned on your side. May I know where can I find those?

Alisa123 2021-10-21

Changes in Paper Status:
2021.4.4 Submission, status: undergoing review
2021.5.5 Status changed to "With Editor for Decision", major revisions requested. Associate editor and 4 reviewers provided suggestions, giving me 3 months to make revisions.
2021.7.8 Submitted revised document after major revisions, status changed to undergoing review.
2021.8.10 Status changed again to "With Editor for Decision", notified that minor revisions are required. Reviewers agreed to accept the revisions, and the associate editor raised some additional questions.
2021.8.23 Submitted the document with minor revisions.
2021.8.26 Paper accepted.

普通小程 2021-09-24

Okay, thank you!!

天涯童鞋 2021-09-23

undergoing review includes two stages: finding reviewers and reviewing the manuscript.

你猴哥 2021-09-18

2021.2.5 submit: Submitted the initial draft to a foreign classmate for review, without any polishing.

2021.3.9 major revision: Two reviewers provided professional comments. There were significant language issues and a series of suggestions for improvement and additional experiments were proposed. Overall, the attitude was positive, but extensive revisions were needed.

2021.5.17 submit: Apart from the main framework and methodology, the experiments were essentially redone, and the paper was rewritten. It was also proofread by a company, addressing the issues raised by the reviewers one by one.

2021.6.15 minor revision: Most of the issues were resolved, but some minor details still needed improvement, mainly in terms of wording. No additional experiments were required.

2021.6.17 submit: Fewer modifications were made and the submission was made two days later.

2021.8.2 minor revision: The first reviewer was satisfied with the modifications and believed the paper could be published directly. The second reviewer possibly changed and provided their own comments, which were fair. The interval between this minor revision and the previous one was longer, possibly due to the change in reviewers.

2021.8.3 submit: Addressed the concerns raised by the second reviewer and provided additional explanations in the manuscript. The paper was improved accordingly.

2021.8.31 accept: Entered the final editing and revision stage. As of September 17th, it should be ready for online publication soon.

普通小程 2021-09-17

Hello, I would like to ask if "Undergoing Review" means that the document is already in the hands of the reviewers or if it is with the editors.

天涯童鞋 2021-09-11

2020.12.26 submit - Submitted twice before but was rejected due to language problems, sought the help of a language editing agency for polishing.
2021.2.9 major revision - Two reviewers provided professional opinions, each with about 12 points, including explanations and additional experiments.
2021.5.10 submit - Due to being busy with my graduation thesis and needing time to think and seek solutions to some issues, I submitted on the day of the deadline.
2021.5.29 major revision - The revised review came back quickly, usually within three weeks. The reviewers' comments were fewer, but there were still unresolved problems.
2021.8.18 submit - After graduation, I was lazy and leisurely. I conducted additional experiments, explained doubts, and came up with some solutions based on the reviewers' comments.
2021.9.8 minor revision - On the first day of my Ph.D., I finally received minor revisions. One reviewer had a question about a small issue that needed further explanation. I completed the figure and explanation within an hour and submitted it.
2021.9.9 accept - Finally, the clouds cleared and I saw the moonlight.

Pola_RSA 2021-08-19

Posted in July 2020, the first round of review ended in January 2021, undergoing major revisions. The associate editor mentioned that out of the 20 reviewers they approached, only two agreed, and also stated that this situation was rare. The revised version was sent back in mid-March, followed by another three-month wait. After minor revisions, it was finally accepted in mid-August. Both rounds of review in this process took a long time. The reviewers' comments were highly professional and greatly contributed to the improvement of the research.

WithEnthusiasm 2021-08-13

15-Apr-2021 Submitted
20-May-2021 Reject and Resubmit
12-Jul-2021 Resubmitted
11-Aug-2021 Accept
Total time consumed was 4 months, with both rounds of review taking about 1 month each, which was highly efficient.
In the first round, there were 3 reviewers and 1 Associate Editor (AE). One reviewer suggested minor revisions, one suggested major revisions, and one recommended resubmission. The AE also recommended resubmission. All of the feedback was professional. The editor noted that there were more modifications required than for major revisions, so the decision was made to reject the manuscript and suggest resubmission.
Based on the reviewers' feedback, relevant experiments were conducted and each comment was addressed before resubmitting. One month later, an acceptance letter was received.
In summary, as a top journal in the field of hyperspectral remote sensing, the reviewers provided professional feedback, and the AE's comments were incisive. The overall handling efficiency was high, and I recommend everyone to submit their work to this journal.
By the way, I hope TGRS's impact factor and ranking can be improved.

Kingw2 2021-08-12

You are talking nonsense. The typesetting of TGRS has never exceeded half a year. Currently, there are approximately hundreds of papers being typeset in a year, such as those in 2020. The fast acceptance of your paper is due to the responsible reviewers and editors, high processing efficiency. Many top journals also accept papers within one or more months, it's a common occurrence. Can this be a point for you to attack the quality of TGRS? The most important papers in the field of remote sensing, which emphasize mechanisms and depth, are mostly published in TGRS. Moreover, the most important papers in the industry are also published in this journal. Refer to NASA, DLR, ESA, JAXA, and other operational models and algorithms. You can ask people in the remote sensing community outside of China to see which journal they most acknowledge. I have asked several JPL researchers (mainly algorithm researchers) at IGARSS, and they all unanimously acknowledge TGRS. Also, you can take a look at the websites of some remote sensing experts in the United States to see where their most outstanding work is published. Be patient and don't draw irresponsible conclusions. Additionally, defining the superiority or inferiority of a journal, outsiders look at the impact factor, while insiders look at the most important papers.