xxyh 2022-06-08

Brother, do not be disheartened. PR originally has high requirements, but it can be modified according to the suggestions of the reviewers and then submitted to Section 234.

运气爆好 2022-06-07

After being rejected for 6 months, the reviewer was very professional and raised critical questions. This journal has high requirements for innovation and writing. Based on the reviewer's comments, I basically have to rewrite my paper. I feel that the reviewer suggested treating this paper as garbage, which is quite disheartening...

二狗蛋 2022-06-02

Just wait, this journal is famous for being slow.

Shijie Wang 2022-05-28

Brother, may I ask if I can choose between the categories of Engineering Technology and Computer when submitting? The former is in Zone 2 and the latter is in Zone 1. I have developed an intelligent defect detection system for the industry. Can I submit it to this journal? I feel like PR mainly focuses on computer-related topics.

Zyric 2022-05-25

Brother, this article went smoothly. I submitted it last year, and it took two months to be reviewed. After the review, it took more than half a year...

Zyric 2022-05-25

I filed it in August last year, and waited for 8 months and 20 days to receive the first review. I felt that I could have responded to those few suggestions in just 3 days. This is how this journal is, so don't rush me.

阿克苏 2022-05-22

Should I send an email to the editor to inquire about the status if "under review" has remained unchanged for 3 months, or should I continue to wait?

阿克苏 2022-05-22

May I ask if it is necessary to send an email to the editor to inquire, as "under review" has not changed for three months? Or should I continue to wait?

xxyh 2022-05-19

Return for major repairs twice in 8 months, pretty fast.

zzh1995 2022-05-19

2022.5.17 decision in process - This means that a decision is currently being made.
2022.5.18 major revision - This indicates that a significant revision is required.

xxyh 2022-05-18

I may be the unluckiest person, and the reasons for the slow progress of my paper are as follows: The goal set by the editor was to obtain two review opinions, but at that time, three reviewers were invited. One reviewer submitted their opinion, but the other two failed to submit their opinions on time. On the 5th of this month, the editor invited another reviewer, but this reviewer refused to review. Therefore, the next step is for the editor to continue searching for a second reviewer.

The capitalized word "服" can be translated as "obey" or "adhere to." However, it is not clear if this word is related to the text provided.

xxyh 2022-05-18

In general, for PR (Permanent Residency), it is not necessary to rush if it has not been obtained within a year... For more specific information, you can search for the post I made on Zhihu.

xxyh 2022-05-18

I have been wandering for 11 and a half months... The first trial opinion has not come back yet. So there is no need to rush.

阿克苏 2022-05-18

January 28, 2022 Initial Date Submitted
February 20, 2022 - Present under review (It has been 3 months, I don't know if I should follow up with the editor.)

阿克苏 2022-05-18

May I ask how long does "under review" take? It has been 3 months, can I send an email to remind the editor? Thank you!

哈哈哈哈嘿 2022-05-17

2021.11.10 submit
2022.02.09 revised, two reviewers
2022.03.16 resubmit
2022.04.19 until now, required reviews completed

I asked customer service, and the two reviewers have already provided their feedback. Is the editor too busy or did they forget? Does it really take a month to make a decision????

阿克苏 2022-05-16

2022.2.20 under review until now

zzh1995 2022-05-11

2022.5.10 reviewers are required to complete their tasks.
The decision is currently in process.

LzhNia 2022-05-07

2022.01.18 Revision Submitted to Journal
2022.01.18 With Editor
2022.01.19 With Editor
2022.01.20 Under Review
2022.03.11 Under Review
2022.03.13 Required Reviews Completed
2022.03.19 Required Reviews Completed
2022.03.21 Decision in Process
2022.03.26 Decision in Process
2022.03.27 Minor Revision

Translation:
2022.01.18 Revision Submitted to Journal
2022.01.18 With Editor
2022.01.19 With Editor
2022.01.20 Under Review
2022.03.11 Under Review
2022.03.13 Required Reviews Completed
2022.03.19 Required Reviews Completed
2022.03.21 Decision in Process
2022.03.26 Decision in Process
2022.03.27 Minor Revision

LzhNia 2022-05-07

2022.04.05 Revision Submitted to Journal
2022.04.05 With Editor
2022.04.06 With Editor
2022.04.06 Under Review
2022.04.13 Required Reviews Completed
2022.04.17 Required Reviews Completed
2022.04.25 Required Reviews Completed
2022.04.25 Decision in Process
2022.05.01 Completed-Accept

Translation:
2022.04.05 Revision Submitted to Journal
2022.04.05 With Editor
2022.04.06 With Editor
2022.04.06 Under Review
2022.04.13 Required Reviews Completed
2022.04.17 Required Reviews Completed
2022.04.25 Required Reviews Completed
2022.04.25 Decision in Process
2022.05.01 Completed-Accept

LzhNia 2022-05-07

2021.08.30 Submitted to Journal
2021.08.30 With Editor
2021.09.05 With Editor
2021.09.08 Under Review
2021.09.19 Under Review
2021.10.02 Required Reviews Completed
2021.10.02 Under Review
2021.11.10 Under Review
2021.12.03 Required Reviews Completed
2021.12.07 Decision in Process
2021.12.11 Decision in Process
2021.12.12 Major Revision

Translation:
2021.08.30 Submitted to Journal
2021.08.30 With Editor
2021.09.05 With Editor
2021.09.08 Under Review
2021.09.19 Under Review
2021.10.02 Required Reviews Completed
2021.10.02 Under Review
2021.11.10 Under Review
2021.12.03 Required Reviews Completed
2021.12.07 Decision in Process
2021.12.11 Decision in Process
2021.12.12 Major Revision

运气爆好 2022-05-07

April 4, 2022, changed to under review.
April 29, 2022, the status changed to under review until now.

xxyh 2022-05-06

Update: 2022.5.5 under review (The date has changed, but the status has not changed. Suspecting a change in the reviewer).

xxyh 2022-05-02

Can it be submitted within three to five months? There is no need to rush it within three months.

时候时候大时候 2022-04-29

It really is too slow... The first review lasted for more than eight months, with four reviewers giving their opinions, all of which were supportive. Among them, two reviewers provided very constructive suggestions. After major revisions, the submission received feedback for minor revisions, mainly from one reviewer. They provided suggestions and examples for modifying word usage, which were very friendly.

时候时候大时候 2022-04-29

2021/3/2 submitted to journal
2021/11/16 major revisions
2022/1/15 revisions to journal
2022/2/17 with editor
2022/3/2 under review
2022/3/10 required reviews completed
2022/3/24 decision in process
2022/3/27 minor revisions
2022/3/30 revisions to journal
2022/4/27 accepted

Translation:
2021/3/2 submitted to journal
2021/11/16 major revisions
2022/1/15 revisions to journal
2022/2/17 with editor
2022/3/2 under review
2022/3/10 required reviews completed
2022/3/24 decision in process
2022/3/27 minor revisions
2022/3/30 revisions to journal
2022/4/27 accepted

xxyh 2022-04-28

I have been waiting for 11 months, but I haven't received the first instance's opinion yet...

xxyh 2022-04-28

2021.05.26 submission
2021.05.27 with editor
2021.10.16 under review
2021.12.16 under review
2021.12.27-now under review
At present: One reviewer has submitted their review, but other reviewers have not.

Dre 2022-04-23

Submitted to journal on 2021/10/26
Major revisions on 2022/1/9
Revisions to journal on 2022/3/10
With editor on 2022/3/17
Required reviews completed on 2022/4/10
Decision in process on 2022/4/18
Accepted on 2022/4/19

The opinions of all three reviewers were very constructive. I wrote a lengthy response letter according to their feedback and made many revisions to the manuscript. However, I am still very happy that the second review resulted in acceptance. Generally speaking, the quickest way is to make the necessary changes according to the reviewers' suggestions.

一审通过 2022-04-10

I am very happy to have published an article in pattern recognition. First, the quality of the article impressed both myself and my supervisor. The reviewers were really professional and friendly, and they provided very constructive comments. I made revisions to the entire article based on their suggestions, which really elevated its quality. The first reviewer pointed out major shortcomings and provided improvement suggestions. The second reviewer was quite strict and believed that the novelty was limited. However, I carefully addressed their comments, compared my method with previous approaches, highlighting the differences and advantages, and resolved their concerns (I don't know why the second reviewer didn't respond during the second review). The third reviewer was definitely a kind and knowledgeable expert. They had a profound understanding of the article and provided insightful suggestions in a gentle manner. It felt like I was communicating with someone who truly understood my research field (it doesn't get any better than this). After a minor revision in the second round of review, the first and second reviewers had no further comments, while the third reviewer requested adjustments to the article's structure. Finally, it was successfully published! It was a great experience.