吃瓜不嫌事大 2021-02-02

No requirement for the same reviewer! Generally, minor revisions do not require changing the reviewer, right? Otherwise, it would be too unfair.

KKT 2021-02-02

Modify once, it is also mentioned in the email that only one modification is allowed. It is very common to change reviewers. If the first reviewer cannot be contacted or gives an acceptance, a new reviewer will be assigned after resubmission to meet the required number of reviewers. Generally speaking, editors may also decide to change or add reviewers based on the quality of the reviews and feedback from the authors.

cjf 2021-02-02

How long have you been submitting contributions?

cjf 2021-02-02

May I ask how many times you made revisions? Is it still the same reviewer as before? I saw many people saying that all the reviewers were changed in the second review.

cjf 2021-02-02

Did you request the same reviewer when revising? Did the editor process the new manuscript again?

保佑上岸啊 2021-02-02

It has been ten days since reapplying, and there is still no news. Ahhhhhhhhhh.

吃瓜不嫌事大 2021-02-02

It has been a week since the second review, and it is still under review.

KKT 2021-02-02

Last year, this journal received 17,931 submissions and approximately 65,000 articles were submitted. If on average, an accepted article goes through one rejection and resubmission, resulting in two submission numbers, the final acceptance rate would be 17,931/(65,000-17,931) = 38.1%, and the rate of direct acceptance would be less than 20%. If an accepted article goes through multiple rejections and resubmissions, it indicates stricter peer review. In comparison, some CCF C-class conferences have direct acceptance rates close to or even over 50%, so IEEE Access is not as easy to get in as it may seem.

之别 2021-02-01

2020.12.19 Submission
2021.1.4 Updates required before resubmission
2021.1.25 Resubmitted after modification
2021.1.30 Accepted

吃瓜不嫌事大 2021-01-30

The first review takes about a month, and all three reviewers gave an "accept with minor revisions" decision. I completed the revisions and returned them three days after receiving the first review comments. It has been three days since I resubmitted for the second review, and the outcome is still unknown. When can I expect the final result in this situation? I hope I don't have to wait for another month.

小鱼儿 2021-01-30

In addition, Derek Abbott will continue to serve as the editor-in-chief. The editorial team now includes 40 members, including three former editors of Proceedings of the IEEE. In addition to them, there are 22 fellows and the remaining 15 members are former associate editors or senior editors of various flagship publications/conferences of the IEEE. It can be said that the current Editorial Board is very prestigious.

AI SHA DI 2021-01-30

2020.12.22 Submission
2021.1.18 Direct hire
2021.1.30 Official publication
Not enough time for the Master's, so I quickly submitted this.

小鱼儿 2021-01-30

Access updated the information of 39 Associate Editors this year, including 24 IEEE Fellows and 2 former Associate Editors of the flagship journal, to form the AE team for Access this year.

clzhang 2021-01-28

--------Update--------
Received an email on 2021-01-28, accepted.

qwertyu 2021-01-27

Some reviewers believe that the technical direction of the article lacks value and completely dismisses this aspect of the work. How can I apply for a change of reviewer in this situation? It seems that I cannot see the information of the reviewer in the system.

clzhang 2021-01-27

2021-01-04 Submission
2021-01-05 Received email, under review
2021-01-14 First review received, 2 reviewers, the first one Reject (updates required before resubmission), the second one Accept (minor edits), AE Reject for resubmission after modifications.
2021-01-25 Resubmitted after modifications.
2021-01-26 Received email, under review.
No news yet, hoping for a similar speed as the first review.

希夷微旨 2021-01-27

Your paper still has some issues. I think the grammar of the paper is good and the logic is clear, allowing the reviewer to quickly make a judgment and come up with results. However, it could also be quickly rejected.

yyyyy 2021-01-27

Submitted on December 10th, just came back from the first review today! I feel like the speed has slowed down recently...

JerryLCC 2021-01-26

Excuse me, may I ask if the original poster has any updates? It has been three weeks for me as well, and my application is still under review.

XXXYZ2101 2021-01-25

Are there 10 reviewers?

Franciss 2021-01-25

The review process has already started, please wait. The initial feedback will be returned in about two weeks.

XXXYZ2101 2021-01-25

Now it is also very slow.

xxx想毕业 2021-01-25

Thank you, the second one directly criticized is not good. The main reason is that both of them are algorithm developers.

hy1983 2021-01-24

Many English journals have been put on the warning list, but what I want to say is that many Chinese journals should be on the warning list as well, including many EI journals that are "SCI EI recognized by the industry." Many of them are academicians, and there is rampant water flooding in the Yangtze River, with random submissions and phone calls from editors with no background urging for manuscripts. If they urge, the editors will simply reject your submission.

儒雅的邵大酱 2021-01-24

Can you see the identity of the reviewers? Our teachers here said that after resubmission, it will still be assigned to the same reviewers, right?

中二也要做科研 2021-01-24

According to the reviewer's comments, make the necessary changes and resubmit, good luck! I don't know about other reviewers, but personally, when I see that the first author is a mature doctoral student, I tend to be more lenient. We are all going through challenges, wishing you success.

xxx想毕业 2021-01-24

Dr. Lao, I only found out about the warning after submitting, but I want to graduate and publish quickly. I believe I have done something substantial and can't wait.

1.2 Submitted
1.4 Under review
1.23 Received rejection, one gave a chance for resubmission, while the other rejected without giving a chance for resubmission, the responsible editor also did not give a chance for resubmission.
The language of the article is definitely not very fluent, and the direction of applying the DDPG algorithm to missile evasion is not quite in line with IEEE Access. At the time of submission, one of the selections was military aircraft and artificial intelligence algorithms, which had no relevance to the others.
Reasons for rejection given:
I felt that the first reviewer had read the entire article carefully, and I fully accept their comments.

The second reviewer rejected without giving a chance for resubmission.
1. The algorithm lacks innovation and is a direct application of existing algorithms, without any innovation (I am not an expert in artificial intelligence algorithms myself).
2. DDPG is used too much in similar fields, and the reviewer provided two reference articles, one on target tracking strategies and the other on obstacle avoidance. (However, in my opinion, this is quite different from aircraft missile evasion. The scope of similarity is quite broad.)
3. The results of the numerical experiments are based on artificial data and are not reliable (generalizing all simulations with a single judgment?), and the presentation of the array results needs improvement (I accept this point).

hky 2021-01-24

Our school does not affect anything. Schools that have their own warning list also do not seem to be affected because they only look at their own warning list.

chickchen 2021-01-22

Is your school implementing such a blanket policy? Can students still use it to graduate? Does it count if it was issued before the warning list was released? What about those who used it for title evaluation or graduation a few years ago?

小鱼儿 2021-01-22

Don't listen to the nonsense downstairs. Today, there is a paper from Tsinghua University's School of Electrical Engineering in the early access. That person downstairs probably can't handle things well, so they are trying to make others feel disgusted.