JKway 2023-05-09

I submitted my request on March 10th, and I still haven't received any results. It has been almost two months now, and it is still undergoing reviewer evaluation. I'm not sure why it is taking so long. The request is about change detection.

Versus 2023-05-08

29-Nov-2022 Submit
26-Dec-2022 Reject and resubmit
09-Feb-2023 Major Revision
30-Mar-2023 Major Revision
06-May-2023 Accept

Translation:
29-Nov-2022 Submit
26-Dec-2022 Reject and resubmit
09-Feb-2023 Major Revision
30-Mar-2023 Major Revision
06-May-2023 Accept

xqdavid 2023-05-06

Submission Experience:
2022.12.13: Submitted/Undergoing Review
2023.02.07: With Editor for Decision
2023.02.08: Major Revision
2023.04.08: A revision has been submitted
2003.05.01: Accept

懒懒懒肥猫 2023-05-05

My minor repair in March has been stagnant for two months after being sent back for repairs. I'm already impatiently waiting.

皮卡丘286 2023-05-05

How many reviewers do you have for your thesis?

CVer_lw 2023-05-04

Yes, it has always been in the review status. Normally, there will be review comments within one month.

罗先生 2023-05-04

May I ask if it's normal for the status "Undergoing review" to be in capital letters for half a month? Is the next status directly opposing opinions?

CVer_lw 2023-05-03

23.03.21 Submission
23.04.28 Minor revision
23.05.03 Revised

I received the reviewer's comments on the evening of the 28th, and I didn't expect to only need a minor revision. Thank you to the reviewer and the editor!
It just so happened that I received the minor revision comments the night before the May Day holiday started, and I revised it back the night before the holiday ended. It was both painful and enjoyable!

wolfdarling 2023-05-01

Forgot to say, this article was originally submitted to GRSL. It was inexplicably rejected during the second review. The reviewer said that we did not provide a point-by-point response to the questions, but we did indeed reply to each point. Maybe we misunderstood the reviewer's questions. We feel that the reviewer did not understand our article clearly and also feel that GRSL's restriction of only allowing five pages caused some issues to be unclearly explained. We believe that our article has a good innovation point, so we decided to expand it and submit it to this journal. We were overconfident, but the final result turned out well.

wolfdarling 2023-05-01

Posted on December 13, 2022;
Rejected and resubmitted on January 17, 2023, with three reviewers and nearly 20 questions; Most of the experiments in the article were redone.
Revised on March 5, 2023;
Received revisions on March 26, 2023, with major revisions. One reviewer had comments, and the associate editor provided three suggestions, and a comparative experiment was added.
Revised on April 13, 2023;
Accepted on April 21, 2023.
Overall, the journal review process was fast, and the reviewers' questions were targeted, allowing us to respond by adding experiments. We have never encountered an associate editor who could provide comments, but the comments they provided were helpful and will be valuable for our future research. The whole process lasted for 5 months, and the article went from the initial 12 pages to 14 pages. Overall, it went smoothly.

alexyang 2023-04-28

The text translates to: "Sent on March 26th, until today there is still no result, it is still undergoing..."

Dilan 2023-04-26

Yes, I feel the same way. I'm quite anxious too, mainly because I can't change that major issue. I can only explain why I didn't do it that way. Other problems are minor and can be resolved easily. I'm just afraid they'll say it lacks innovation in the end. I haven't revised it yet, and I'm currently thinking about how to modify the manuscript based on the reviewer's comments.

sky000 2023-04-26

What is your final result?

sky晴 2023-04-26

My submission was rejected and asked for a resubmission. One reviewer was okay, but another gave a lot of comments. Many of them are difficult to change, so I explained a bit. I don't know if it will be rejected again or not.

Dilan 2023-04-26

Posted on February 16th, undergoing review;
On April 24th, first review comments were received. Two reviewers provided their opinions, one with one major issue and the other with 11 comments;
Associate Editor
Comments to the Author:
The reviewers have indicated that your paper is unsuitable for publication without major changes. Please carefully read the reviewers' comments and revise the paper accordingly.
Three months were given for major revisions. The major issue raised seems to be a significant problem in the industry. Due to limitations in experimental conditions and data, it seems impossible to make the necessary modifications. It is estimated that the paper will be rejected.

lsl19970909 2023-04-26

It may be difficult to find reviewers.

gb1994 2023-04-26

The current status is still undergoing review...

gb1994 2023-04-26

The current status is still Undergoing Review...

bin 2023-04-26

I submitted it on January 11th, and there is still no news now.

CVer_lw 2023-04-25

Do you have any results now?

BadFame 2023-04-21

The hyperspectral images that I made. After going through the process of rejection and improvement, they became more refined, so the subsequent progress was smoother.

cnn123 2023-04-19

How long does it take to be indexed by Wos? The flowers have withered while waiting.

AAAZZZ 2023-04-19

Oh, oh, oh, it seems like tgrs minor revision emails will always have the subject line "recommended for publication subject to satisfactory response to minor revisions suggested," right?

lsl19970909 2023-04-19

Generally, minor revisions mean that you have to accept them. Mine has corrected a few grammar errors.

AAAZZZ 2023-04-19

May I ask if your email about Xiao Xiu is considering the need for Xiao Xiu or just Xiao Xiu alone?

lsl19970909 2023-04-19

Update:
4.19 Received

Jackye12a 2023-04-11

May I ask which aspect of remote sensing you specialize in?

Jackye12a 2023-04-11

Submitted on 3.13, rejected on 4.11, overall speed is normal. However, my research methodology is more inclined towards traditional machine methods. Most of the reviewers for this journal always require a comparison with deep learning methods from the past three years (sometimes suitable code cannot even be found). Therefore, in order to submit to TGRS, it is necessary to compare with the latest deep learning methods. There were a total of five review comments, two of which were clearly amateurish and asked questions that are not usually asked in this field. The other three reviewers were very meticulous, and even the smallest errors were discovered. The editor's responses were very professional and mostly focused on domain-specific issues.

Overall, TGRS is indeed an excellent journal, and my own level is still not sufficient. I hope that students who want to submit to TGRS will pay attention to comparing with deep learning methods and ensure the rigor and innovation of their formula derivations.

bin 2023-04-11

I have been waiting for three months today and still have no news.

落絮 2023-04-11

Your response speed is so fast.