友情提示:以下期刊信息可能会有更新,仅供参考,请在投稿前自行登录期刊官网仔细核实。
期刊名
Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics
J SYST ENG ELECTRON
ISSN / eISSN
1671-1793
目标和范围
Information not localized
研究方向
自动化与控制系统
工程:电子与电气
运筹学与管理科学
CiteScore
3.20
查看趋势图
CiteScore 学科排名
类别 | 分区 | 排名 |
---|---|---|
Engineering - Control and Systems Engineering | Q2 | #136/286 |
Engineering - Computer Science Applications | Q3 | #399/792 |
Engineering - Electrical and Electronic Engineering | Q3 | #375/738 |
Web of Science 核心合集
Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) | Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) |
---|---|
Indexed | - |
类别 (Journal Citation Reports 2023) | 分区 |
---|---|
AUTOMATION & CONTROL SYSTEMS - SCIE | Q3 |
ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC - SCIE | Q3 |
OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE - SCIE | Q3 |
H-index
28
出版国家或地区
PEOPLES R CHINA
出版商
Science Press
出版周期
Quarterly
出版年份
1996
年文章数
136
Open Access
NO
通讯方式
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING & ELECTRONICS, EDITORIAL DEPT, PO BOX 142-32, BEIJING, PEOPLES R CHINA, 100854
认证评论
Submitted on 16th March 22, and it was received and sent for review on the same day.
On 17th August 22, it showed that the reviewers had finished reviewing. During this period, there was no display of the review progress. I only saw that the editor had sent it to 5-8 reviewers. After reminding once, they said it was being reviewed, so I had to wait.
Rejected on 6th September 22. The opinions of the two reviewers are as follows:
Reviewer 1: The overall structure of the paper is good. The description of the basic knowledge section is redundant. The experimental and analytical parts of the manuscript lack clear control groups or other comparison indicators. Rejected. (Very vague opinion, did not point out where and what kind of control experiments and indicators are missing, not helpful for improving the paper, and also doubted whether the reviewer understood the author's experimental content)
Reviewer 2: The organization of the introduction is confusing, and the author should reorganize this part. The motivation and contribution of this work should be clarified and emphasized. Try to set the issues discussed in this paper more clearly and write a paragraph to define the problem. No decision on accepting/rejecting the manuscript was given. (Obviously, they didn't read my experiment and directly rejected it after reading the abstract and introduction)
In short, it took half a year for this journey, and what I got was two vague review opinions plus an editor's rejection. The experience was very bad. The email did not mention the possibility of appeal, so I assume that there is no way to appeal, and I am too lazy to argue with such reviewers.
I will not submit to this journal in the future.
Find Funding. Review Successful Grants.
Explore over 25,000 new funding opportunities and over 6,000,000 successful grants.
ExploreBecome a Peeref-certified reviewer
The Peeref Institute provides free reviewer training that teaches the core competencies of the academic peer review process.
Get Started