QLZ 2021-10-30

You have made many objective points. Especially regarding the issue of circles, this is a problem that RSE really needs to pay attention to. It is not particularly difficult to be outside of these circles now, as the level in China has improved. Many articles written by Chinese people who are not part of these circles can be found in each issue of the publication. This is also a normal phenomenon.

回到过去 2021-10-24

The first review takes three months for major revisions (with over 70 issues raised), the second review takes two months for minor revisions, and the third review is accepted directly.

RSE usually requires at least three reviewers, who are highly professional. Generally, two rounds of revisions are required, and even after major revisions, the paper may still be rejected.

RSE currently focuses on large-scale research, including temporal or spatial scope, which makes it easier to publish.

If there are influential researchers mentioned in the paper, it is also relatively easier to publish in RSE.

It is particularly difficult for research groups outside the community to publish an RSE paper.

There are no specific formatting requirements for RSE submissions, but plagiarism check is mandatory. It is recommended to have a similarity index of no more than 15%, otherwise the paper may be directly rejected.

The latest impact factor has exceeded 10 and is expected to gradually increase, as it is a top journal in the field of remote sensing.

starlpl 2021-04-16

Hello, may I ask where can I find the submission template for the journal Remote Sensing of Environment? Do you use LaTex or Word? Is it single column or double column? Thank you~

Confidence 2021-04-09

What I said and what you said are not actually contradictory. It is definitely worth recognizing and encouraging if a master's student can publish a good paper, even if it is in a journal with a low impact factor, as long as the work is meaningful. However, we should not exaggerate the importance of a specific journal just because we have published in it, especially when it is not that significant. I am also a beginner in the field of scientific research, and this is ultimately a journal review. What should be emphasized more is informing readers about the content and suitability of the journal, the speed of peer review, and various states. These are the useful information, aren't they? The overall level of Chinese researchers has improved, and in the field of remote sensing, Chinese researchers are either in the first or second place in terms of good journals, which can be verified. More and more people are now able to publish in good journals (some may have connections with Chinese editors or influential figures, which also reduces the difficulty). We should not be impatient, nor should we judge achievements based on journal impact factors, as this is also encouraged by the country. We should evaluate the specific work content, not just the impact factor. As for the assessment you mentioned, it is not something we can decide. We can only focus on doing good research and not be driven by impact factors.

科研小喽喽 2021-03-30

I think what you said makes sense, but we should also look at things from a positive perspective. Different people have different viewpoints at different stages of their lives. For example, a master's student may have a different perspective on RSE compared to someone like you who has already achieved great success. However, does that mean this master's student will never be as good as you in the future? Having papers published in top journals may not be something to boast about, but it is something that every remote sensing enthusiast desires. As scientific researchers, especially young ones, we constantly face criticism and scrutiny from mentors, universities, peer reviewers, and journal editors, but we also need encouragement. Even an academician should not boast about a primary school student scoring 100 in math because they may not have considered the potential development of that student in the coming decades.

whuer 2021-01-29

2020-8-31 Submission
2020-11-7 First review returned, major revisions, four reviewers, one reviewer had sharp criticism that was difficult to address, but all four reviewers had positive opinions. Each person provided many suggestions, totaling around seventy to eighty points. It took three days to organize the results of the first review...
Due to personal reasons related to the graduation defense, the revision of the paper was delayed until December when I had time to start working on it.
2020-12-27 First revision returned, the editor handled it promptly, Under Review on January 2, 2021. I thought there might be a delay due to Christmas and New Year, but there was none.
2021-1-29 Second review returned, editor accepted.

The editor worked very quickly in handling the manuscript, the review process was fast, and the reviewers' opinions were very good, although the modifications were not easy... I added additional validation experiments and analysis on my own, but I did learn a lot of knowledge from the opinions of the four reviewers. Some points were overlooked by myself, and one reviewer provided their own interpretation and analysis of a phenomenon in the discussion section, which I found very interesting. I was not aware of this knowledge before, so I added this suggestion after consulting relevant materials during the revision process. I am very grateful for the corrections and suggestions from the four reviewers and the editor. I hope the journal continues to prosper.

InSAR 2021-01-11

August 15th - submitted
November 26th - first review and major revisions (both reviewers suggested minor changes)
December 5th - completed revisions and submitted
January 9th - accepted