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
NEUROCOMPUTING
NEUROCOMPUTING
ISSN / eISSN
0925-2312
目标和范围
Neurocomputing publishes articles describing recent fundamental contributions in the field of neurocomputing. Neurocomputing theory, practice and applications are the essential topics being covered.
研究方向
计算机:人工智能
CiteScore
10.80
查看趋势图
CiteScore 学科排名
类别 | 分区 | 排名 |
---|---|---|
Neuroscience - Cognitive Neuroscience | Q1 | #8/109 |
Neuroscience - Computer Science Applications | Q1 | #61/792 |
Neuroscience - Artificial Intelligence | Q1 | #41/301 |
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 |
---|---|
COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - SCIE | Q2 |
H-index
110
出版国家或地区
NETHERLANDS
出版商
Elsevier
出版周期
Bimonthly
出版年份
1989
年文章数
1465
Open Access
NO
通讯方式
ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS, 1000 AE
认证评论
I was not satisfied because the comments from the first reviewer were not difficult to address, not a major issue. The second reviewer was unprofessional and perfunctory. So, I made the revisions and replied, resubmitted, but it was rejected again within two days. The reason for rejection was that the editor believed there were no major changes. Haha, there weren't many areas that needed modification in the suggestions provided, and I answered and made revisions to each comment seriously, including the perfunctory reviewer's comments. Maybe they just have a lot of manuscripts and don't need mine. Both the reviewers and the editor are disappointing. I don't believe the editor couldn't see through the whole process of the second reviewer's empty words and perfunctory attitude.
2021.09.03 decision in process
2021.09.07 accepted
Also, I would like to share some submission experiences this time, hoping to be helpful to others.
First, the journal sent a total of 10 review invitations to me for the first round of review. Therefore, any changes in the status "Under review" could be either due to reviewers declining the invitation or the previous reviewers not responding, resulting in the editor logging into the system to send invitations to new reviewers. But overall, changes in the status "Under review" indicate that the manuscript is being processed.
Second, for the second round of review, an additional reviewer was added, who provided positive feedback and suggested conducting additional experiments but without making it mandatory. The other two reviewers who provided comments in the first round had already agreed to accept the manuscript, so the editor directly accepted it in the end. It seems that this journal tends to add reviewers for the second and third rounds of review. In my case, even after attempting to invite 10 reviewers, I still tried to invite new reviewers for the second round. Additionally, I know of many other submission cases where additional reviewers were added.
Discover Peeref hubs
Discuss science. Find collaborators. Network.
Join a conversationFind the ideal target journal for your manuscript
Explore over 38,000 international journals covering a vast array of academic fields.
Search