止如水 2022-01-11

The first trial was quick. After the major repairs were completed and returned, the required reviews were completed. It has been a month since this state. What's going on?

sucya 2021-12-17

Rejected in ten days.
Reasons for rejection:
1. Lack of innovation.
2. No remote sensing dataset.

小狮子J 2021-12-11

July 21, 2021 Posted
July 22, 2021 with editor
July 25, 2021 under review
September 16, 2021 major revision, positive attitude from reviewer and editor, one-month deadline
October 13, 2021 submitted after major revision
November 05, 2021 minor revision
November 07, 2021 submitted after minor revision
November 09, 2012 accepted
December 06, 2021 online

Q.W. 2021-12-05

Is this journal no longer allowing recommended reviewers?

dbzn 2021-11-29

First review took seven months, and couldn't find a suitable reviewer. The status changed many times. Finally, received two comments, one of which is less than 200 words and more than half of it directly copies my original words from the paper. The comment says, "Why the authors did not use the xxx data that provides information about xxx." It is obvious that a reviewer was assigned to review the paper, and it can be certain that the reviewer barely read the article. They wrote a little over 100 words and gave a rejection. I hope the journal can seriously search for reviewers, otherwise, it is really a waste of seven months for researchers!

siwuxie 2021-11-24

July 3, 2021: Submission
August 19: Major revision
September 9: Submit revised draft
October 3: Minor revision
October 16: Submit revised draft
October 22: Minor revision
November 3: Submit revised draft
November 5: Accepted

爱笑的小飞鱼 2021-10-21

Continue with the following posts
2021-09-17, resubmit
2021-09-18, with editor
2021-09-18, under review
2021-09-18, required reviews completed
2021-10-11, required reviews completed date change
2021-10-12, minor revision, Reviewer 3 accepts, one issue, AE asks to resolve
2021-10-13, resubmit
2021-10-14, with editor
2021-10-18, with editor
2021-10-20, minor revision, AE accepts, but Editor-in-Chief Clément Mallet suggests three points for manuscript improvement.
2021-10-21, resubmit, with editor
2021-10-21, Editor-in-Chief, accept
Thanks to Editor-in-Chief Clément Mallet for giving the opportunity to resubmit and thanks to AE for giving the chance to continue major revisions, being rigorous and responsible. 10 months, top in the area, new Editor-in-Chief Clément Mallet ensures strict quality control of manuscripts, wishing for a continuously increasing impact factor.

爱笑的小飞鱼 2021-10-21

Following post

2021-06-28, Resubmit.
2021-06-28, With editor.
2021-07-05, Under Review.
2021-07-12, Under Review, date change.
2021-08-02, Under Review, date change.
2021-08-17, Required Reviews Completed.
2021-08-31, Required Reviews Completed, date change.
2021-09-10, Major Revision. Originally, both Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 agreed to accept, but two additional reviewers were added. Reviewer 3 rejected, stating that the methodology lacks innovation and does not meet the ISPRS level. Reviewer 4 accepted. The AE provided an opportunity for significant revisions to address Reviewer 3's concerns.

爱笑的小飞鱼 2021-10-21

2020-01-16, Submit
2020-01-16, With Editor, Handled by Editor Clément Mallet, took half an hour, time changed once with the editor, handed over to AE for processing, AE specializes in computer vision.
2020-01-25, Under Review, Dates during the period twice.
2020-04-15, Reject, two reviewers.
Reviewer 1 provided comments in a 4-page PDF, requiring major revisions.
Reviewer 2 provided some comments, also requiring major revisions.
(1) AE felt that Reviewer 1 had too many comments and required too many changes, so it was rejected. (2) AE's comments were objective, responsible, and rigorous. ISPRS is a top-tier journal in the field of remote sensing, with an impact factor of 8.979, second only to Remote Sensing of Environment (RSE), which has an impact factor of 10.164, while IEEE TGRS has an impact factor of 5.6! (3) Editor-in-Chief Clément Mallet rejected it but encouraged resubmission. Thanks to the editor.
From April 15, 2021, to the end of June 2021, the paper was revised for over two months.

liliangzhi 2021-09-16

One reviewer, two major revisions.

yanmu 2021-09-09

3.15 submitted
7.13 major revision
7.18 submitted
8.11 major revision
8.15 submitted
9.1 decision in process
9.8 accept

Translation:
3.15 - Submitted
7.13 - Major revision
7.18 - Submitted
8.11 - Major revision
8.15 - Submitted
9.1 - Decision in process
9.8 - Accept

czy126 2021-09-08

Hello, I would like to ask how long does the "decision in process" stage last for your manuscript review? I had two major revisions, and the decision for both revisions was returned on the same day via email. Now, it has been a week since I submitted the second major revision, and there has been no change in the status of "decision in process". I am really anxious as it has been almost six months since I submitted in March.

遥感小硕 2021-09-05

3.1, submitted
6.22, major (3 weeks)
7.9, resubmitted
7.28, major (5 weeks)
8.6, resubmitted
8.24, minor and resubmitted
9.3 accepted

Translation:
3.1, submitted
6.22, major (3 weeks)
7.9, resubmitted
7.28, major (5 weeks)
8.6, resubmitted
8.24, minor and resubmitted
9.3 accepted

爱笑的小飞鱼 2021-07-06

Five months, two reviewers, both major revisions. The Associate Editor (AE) rejected the paper, and one of the reviewers provided a detailed 6-7 page PDF with suggestions. The reviewer was very thorough and careful in their evaluation.

sane 2021-05-20

1.5, submitted
3.3, major (4 weeks)
4.20, minor
4.27 accepted
5.13 online

The journal's editor is responsible, meticulous, and efficient. The selected peer reviewers are scholars familiar with the field, and their suggestions are highly professional and helpful.

柳懿珊 2021-02-27

October 9, 2020: Submission
October 11, 2020: Under review
November 31, 2020: Major revision
December 31, 2020: Major revision resubmitted
January 24, 2021: Second round of minor revision
February 2, 2021: Minor revision resubmitted
February 4, 2021: Accepted
February 20, 2021: Online publication

Overall, smooth sailing all the way, and it was quick. The reviewer's suggestions were also very positive. Although there was a major revision round, it seems like not many changes were made before resubmission (although additional experiments were requested), haha.

winmler 2021-01-26

You can choose OA or not choose OA. OA is chargeable.

winmler 2021-01-26

March 20: Submission
September 8: Major revision
December 21: Acceptance
The first review process was very long, taking six months. After the major revisions were made, the second review was quick. After some minor revisions, it was accepted.
The reviewer's comments were very professional and addressed the key points.
The entire process was smooth, including submitting the final draft and filling out various forms. They did not ask for further changes due to minor issues, and the editor handled most of the issues. Highly recommended.