CCCJQ 2022-04-06

Hello, last December I submitted an article to RS. Three experts reviewed it, two of them suggested major revisions, while one requested a revised version. The editor also requested the revised version. Recently (3/21), I submitted the revised version, and one of the experts said they would accept it after modifying the image pixels, while the other expert mentioned the need for more accurate description and other standard issues. However, one expert stated twice that "more editing than a major revision" is required, but did not specify what needs to be changed and their response only consisted of two sentences. I'm unsure how to reply to this expert. The current status is unknown (pending decision).

CCCJQ 2022-04-06

Hello, last December I submitted an article to RS. Three experts reviewed it, two suggested major revisions, and one recommended a resubmission after making the necessary changes. The editor also asked for a resubmission after the modifications were made. Recently (on 3/21), I resubmitted the revised version. One of the experts agreed to accept it after making changes to the image resolution, while the other expert raised some standard concerns about the need for a more accurate description of the methods used, among other things. However, there is one expert who mentioned twice that the article requires "more editing than a major revision," but they did not specify what exactly needs to be changed, and their response consisted of only two sentences. I am unsure how to respond to this expert. The current status is unknown (pending decision).

jeslo 2022-04-06

I submitted it on April 2nd, and it has been pending review until now. I would like to ask what the situation is.

k9999-proboot 2022-04-06

3.8 Submission
3.21 Major maintenance
3.30 Return after major maintenance
4.1 Reception

CCCJQ 2022-04-05

I want to ask everyone about the issue of submitting an article to RS. Last December, I submitted to RS, and three experts provided feedback. Two of them suggested major revisions, and one requested a resubmission after making modifications. Recently, I made the necessary changes and resubmitted the article. One of the experts said they would accept it after modifying the image resolution, while another expert mentioned the need for a more accurate description of the methods. However, one expert mentioned twice that the article requires "more editing than a major revision," without specifying the areas that need improvement and providing only two sentences in response. How should I reply to this expert? The current status is unknown (pending decision). I recently graduated with a master's degree, so please be gentle in your criticism.

CCCJQ 2022-04-05

Hello, I am also involved in UAV applications. I have previously submitted my work, and three experts provided feedback. Two of them suggested major revisions, while one recommended submitting the revised version. The editor also mentioned resubmitting after making the necessary changes. Recently, when I resubmitted the revised version, one expert mentioned that they would accept it after modifying the image pixels, while another expert requested a more accurate description of the methods. However, one expert mentioned twice that "more editing than a major revision" is needed without specifying the exact changes required. I am unsure how to respond to this expert. The current status is unknown (pending decision).

jeslo 2022-04-04

2022.4.2 Result unknown after voting.

cherry_ 2022-04-03

3.16 submission, the outcome is unknown now.

遥感小硕 2022-03-25

"If the submission deadline is later than October 2021 and cannot participate in the award evaluation, it cannot be considered as a qualifying thesis for graduation. If it was received before October, it will be evaluated by the academic committee to determine if it can be awarded a degree." These were the original words of a responsible teacher from a certain college at Wuhan University. Of course, different colleges may have different regulations. The fact that RS has been partially blacklisted cannot be changed by proving its high quality and non-triviality. If there are doubts about whether it can be used for graduation, the best way is to ask the teachers in your own college, rather than questioning my comments.

bcfde163 2022-03-21

1.18 Submission
2.18 Reminder for submission
2.28 Major revisions based on reviewer's comments
3.9 Revision
3.16 Acceptance
3.18 Online publication

zone 2022-03-18

Remote sensing image processing field
February 24th: Submission
March 4th: Major revision based on the first review. Two out of three reviewers suggested minor revisions, while the third reviewer rejected the article due to insufficient innovation.
March 12th: Resubmission
March 14th: Minor revisions. The first two reviewers approved, while the third reviewer raised seven or eight additional questions.
March 16th: Resubmission
March 17th: Accepted

zqfff 2022-03-18

Submission time: 2.2
Pending review: 2022.2.2
Under review: 2022.2.2
Pending major revisions: 2022.3.5
Resubmitted: 2022.3.9
Pending review: 2022.3.9
Revised version review: 2022.3.9
Pending minor revisions: 2022.3.9
Resubmitted: 2022.3.9
Revised version review: 2022.3.10
Pending editor decision: 2022.3.10
Paper accepted: 2022.3.17
I was fortunate to have this article accepted before my master's graduation, focusing on the application of UAV remote sensing. There were a total of three reviewers, one of whom was very professional and raised profound questions. Based on his suggestions, I made revisions to the article, which greatly improved the quality of the discussion section. I am very grateful to the three reviewers and editors, and I hope RS can strictly control the quality of articles and continue to improve!

ayuyu 2022-03-18

In the middle, I experienced the Chinese New Year and found some time to make some changes.
Second submission:
2/10/2021, submitted; 2/11, under review; This time the review process was very fast, it only took ten days to complete. 2/21, pending editor decision, but this time there were four reviewers, one of whom was the same reviewer from the previous submission, and the other three were new. Reviewer 1 suggested acceptance, reviewers 2 and 3 mainly pointed out formatting issues, but reviewer 4 provided a lot of comments (around ten), and at that time I thought I wouldn't encounter another expert this time. This reviewer made extensive revisions, including grammar, formulas, typos, etc., and checked everything from beginning to end. I am truly grateful for this dedicated reviewer. 2/25, accept after minor revision. It feels like there were more revisions this time compared to the previous one, but they were minor. 3/4, resubmit. I couldn't finish the revisions in the meantime, so I requested a two-day extension. 3/17, accept.
After these two submissions, I don't think RS (Research Society) is as easy as people say, although they do have a high volume of submissions. But there are also many serious reviewers and experts in the field. I hope the journal can continue to improve, and I also hope that fellow researchers can submit more papers. If you have any questions, please leave a comment below and I will reply when I see it.

ayuyu 2022-03-18

Let me share my submission experience:
It's quite unfortunate. I submitted to RS's special issue.
First submission: Submitted on 11/25/2021; on 11/26, under review; on 12/15, pending decision. At this time, I could see two reviewer comments in the system. Reviewer 1 strongly recommended acceptance (I couldn't believe it when I saw this, as it was my first submission), while Reviewer 2 had some decent comments and raised a few standard questions, as well as some formatting issues.
On 12/24, the editor requested major revisions but mentioned that they were still awaiting feedback from another reviewer. Two days later, I received the feedback from the third reviewer, and it was very bad! They provided four "must" revisions and one "can" revision, along with a bunch of tricky questions.
On 1/3/2022, I had to submit the revised manuscript within ten days. On 1/10, it was pending the editor's decision. At this point, the system showed the second round of reviews. Reviewers 1 and 2 both agreed to accept the manuscript, but Reviewer 3 still had significant concerns and believed that it couldn't be published in its current form. However, Reviewer 3 gave the decision-making authority to the editor to decide whether to accept or reject it.
On 1/19, it was rejected with encouragement to resubmit. The editor's comment was that they followed the advice of Reviewer 3, who is a prominent figure in the field, thus respecting the expert's opinion...

我要毕业111 2022-03-14

The journal found responsible reviewers, and the article indeed improved its quality under the reviewers' opinions.

20211224 pending review
20211225 under review
20210131 refused and encouraged to resubmit after revision

20220224 pending review
20220225 under review
20220304 minor revision
20220309 resubmit
20220310 accept
20220311 pending English
20220311 author proofreading
20220314 resubmit
20220314 pending conversion
20220314 website online

kjmooo 2022-03-13

Which ecological journal is it? Can you please let me know?

kjmooo 2022-03-13

Which MDPI ecological journal is it? Can you please let me know?

叫啥都重名 2022-03-12

Supplement:
After being rejected by the RS editor, it is advised to submit to another ecology-related journal.
2/25: Submitted to the new journal L.
3/4: Minor revisions - The academic editor of journal L suggested compressing the abstract and requested a revision within one week.
3/8: Revised and returned.
3/11: Accepted.
------
Here's a tip, especially for those who are graduating.
If the editor suggests submitting to a specific journal, it is recommended to follow their advice.
For example, this time when submitting to journal L, there is no need to go through the uerder review process again. Instead, the submission goes directly to the academic editor of L with a pending decision, which can save a lot of time.
It's best to send an email to the editor to confirm. In my case, I sent an email and the editor confirmed that it was no longer under review.

珺123 2022-03-10

Hello, can you explain why you are being difficult? Is it because you raised an opinion that cannot be changed?

珺123 2022-03-10

Hello, what was the reason for your rejection? Did you make all the suggested revisions from every reviewer every day?

珺123 2022-03-10

Hello, did you finally add a comparative experiment?

遥感小硕 2022-03-09

The "graduation qualification" mentioned here is only limited to doctoral students, so it doesn't matter for master's students.

yushengwhu 2022-03-07

Indeed, scholarships are not recognized either.

Goodman- 2022-03-01

Too expensive, so I avoid green peppers...

没有名字_无名 2022-03-01

It is not necessary. For a Master's degree in Remote Sensing at Wuhan University, only one Chinese core paper is required for graduation, and there is no need for a professional paper.

ximenchuixue 2022-02-28

(1) Submission Process: Because I previously submitted to a prestigious journal in the research field, which can be considered as a top journal in the industry, it went through several rounds of review. However, in the end, the final reviewer rejected it, which was quite frustrating at the time. Afterwards, I chose Remote Sensing, a journal with a fast review process. After submitting the paper, the editor sent back the reviewer's comments in about 15 days. Since only minor revisions were required, I was asked to complete them within 3 days. I submitted the revised paper the next morning, and in the afternoon, it was accepted. The entire process of submission, revision, and acceptance took only 20 days, which is indeed very efficient.

(2) Reviewer's Comments: The experimental analysis in the paper was quite comprehensive, and the comments provided by the editor were fairly objective. Although there were quite a few comments, they were all minor issues. I addressed each comment in my response to the reviewer.

(3) Future Expectations: Furthermore, after the release of the warning list by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, everyone is now more cautious about open-access journals. I hope that the editorial department of Remote Sensing can maintain a high standard for journal quality in the future.

叫啥都重名 2022-02-23

1.30 Submission
2.15 Pending decision, 3 reviewers. Reviewer 2: all yes, thinks it is written very well and highly valuable, suggests acceptance. Reviewer 2: all yes, also thinks it is written very well with good language, suggests acceptance after compressing the abstract. Reviewer 3: 1 yes, 3 musts, thinks the article is very valuable but only used a small amount of remote sensing methods, not quite in line with the journal's focus. Suggests submitting this "good manuscript" to an excellent journal related to ecological assessment.
2.23 Received rejection of the manuscript, the academic editor believes it does not fit within the scope of the journal.
...........
The problem is, if it didn't fit the scope of the journal, it shouldn't have been submitted in the first place, wasting 23 days.

RCW 2022-02-23

The journal review process is incredibly fast, but the reviewers provide many opinions, most of which are very constructive and helpful for improving the article.

lingbaishi 2022-02-22

Summary: Last March, I submitted to an authoritative journal in a small field. After nearly a year of review, response, second review, and battle, it was ultimately rejected. Because I changed schools to pursue a PhD after completing my master's degree, I decided to submit it to RS, and the overall process went smoothly.
1/22: Submitted and pending review
1/24: Under review
2/6: Pending decision. I can see that there are three reviewers' responses in the system. Maybe because my content is niche, the experts didn't fully understand it and provided mostly formatting suggestions, which were quite positive.
2/7: Pending major revisions. Maybe one of the reviewers wanted to see my response, so they requested major revisions, otherwise minor revisions would have sufficed.
2/18: Resubmitted and received revised version. Due to the Chinese New Year, there was a delay of a few days.
2/22: Pending editor decision. I can see that the reviewers no longer have any questions, and the editor provided some minor revision suggestions and added a reference.
2/22: Paper accepted. I submitted the revised manuscript in the afternoon and it was accepted in the evening.
PS: Language is a mysterious thing. Two reviewers thought the language of my paper was good, but one still felt that it needed proofreading.

hrs1989 2022-02-21

It took some time to find reviewers in the early stage, but the process of minor revisions and submission online was quite fast. One reviewer's opinion was very reasonable, and the review was conducted very carefully.