gx123 2021-07-02

How do I know if it has been submitted for review? It has been showing "under review" all this time.

wyuan1 2021-07-01

May I ask if "大修后被拒" means being rejected after major revisions during the "pending editor decision" stage? How long did it take to be rejected after the major revisions? Was it a direct rejection or a rejection with the option to resubmit?

Giser-SJH 2021-07-01

Everyone says that Remote Sensing is a good journal to submit to, so I tried submitting a recent good job opportunity. The editor is very responsible and strict. It took almost a month for the first round of revisions to come back, with feedback from three reviewers, who gave nearly 20 suggestions. The deadline for major revisions was only 15 days, which was not enough time. After requesting an extension, I submitted the revised version. In the end, it was still rejected.

Overall, this journal is faster than traditional journals, but the review process is not lenient at all. The experts' questions are very straightforward and to the point. Additionally, Remote Sensing has high language requirements. It is definitely not a low-quality journal. Those who claim it is low-quality should try submitting their own work to see for themselves.

wyuan1 2021-06-29

Do I have to wait this long for the first under review? I submitted on June 10th and it was sent for review on the 11th. But now it's still under review, and I feel anxious every day.

I want to ask, I see that many people have to go through a pending editor decision after submitting to remote sensing. Does this mean that the paper can still be rejected during this process after making revisions?

zzzzxxx 2021-06-26

The pictures I submitted are not good-looking either. The reviewers asked for revisions, and they also requested improvements in the English readability. The editors didn't pay attention to these at first. If you get rejected by the editor just because of this, it can only mean that your work is really not up to par. As a reviewer, if your figures are not clear and your content lacks logic, who can understand it? Everyone's time is precious, especially for non-mathematics professionals who might spend only half an hour reviewing your paper and then provide comments. Additionally, if you have innovative points, others only need half an hour to review them, after all, it's reviewing, not reproducing.

qhyzj 2021-06-25

5.21 Received manuscript
6.9 Major revisions, 6.14 resubmit revised manuscript
6.16 Received responses from reviewers, all three reviewers accepted, manuscript status changed to pending editor decision
It has been 10 days in pending editor decision status. During this time, consulted with AE, who said to wait for the academic editor to check and make a decision. If there is no response from the academic editor, another academic editor will be invited to check. Waiting anxiously.

wangxiaoer 2021-06-25

I experienced the MDPI submission process. I think MDPI has three aspects: (1) Regarding the issue of initial rejection. The initial editor judges whether your manuscript can be sent for review based on factors such as the length of your article, the attractiveness of the charts, and language issues. Whether the article is innovative and cutting-edge is not considered as a basis for review. It's like a math teacher grading your paper based on whether your handwriting is good or not, and if it's not good, it's directly judged as a fail. (2) Issue of external review. There should be no problem with external review, similar to other journals. (3) Issue of final review. When the reviewer's feedback is received, the editor does not have the ability to decide whether to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript. This is the biggest difference compared to traditional journals, where the editorial opinion is included in the reviewer's comments. If you want to engage in academia in the long term, it's better to submit to journals with high industry recognition, even if they are in the 3rd or 4th quartile.

FastDuck 2021-06-21

Although the reviewers' opinions were quite fair and positive, I was directly rejected by the editor in Wuhan, named Cici.Xia, without any reasons given. The editor was very irresponsible and just used a generic response.

生态giser 2021-06-21

submit: 14 May 2021
major revision: 9 June (given 10 days) 16 June revised, three reviewers, two provided very few but positive comments. The third reviewer gave many minor suggestions, but overall was very positive about the article.
minor revision: 17 June (given only 2 days) 18 June revised, again the third reviewer provided three minor comments, revised the same day and resubmitted the next day.
accepted: 21 June
Overall, the review process was fast and the suggestions greatly improved the article. From submission to acceptance, it took a little over a month, and the editor was responsible and communicated promptly.

草珊瑚 2021-06-20

Fast review, high price.

范德路易彪 2021-06-18

Hello, may I ask which editing service you chose when proofreading? Was it the Regular editor or the Specialist editor provided by remote sensing? Thank you.

BITer 2021-06-13

The first review rejected the manuscript, and the editor suggested making revisions and resubmitting. After the revisions were made and resubmitted, the first reviewer provided positive feedback without raising any issues and recommended acceptance for publication. However, a new reviewer was also assigned and raised a bunch of questions, giving 5 "musts". Feeling exhausted...

张先森加油吖 2021-06-07

Received: 24 April 2021
Major revision: 7 May 2021
Minor revision: 25 May 2021
Accepted: 27 May 2021
Published: 29 May 2021
The review process was fast, and the editorial service was good, with some influence.

We welcome discussions on the integration of learning and crop remote sensing classification. Please visit https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13112146.

fairy1993 2021-06-04

Hello, I also recently received an invitation email. I would like to ask whether the special issue for the invitation requires immediate submission after completing the manuscript, or if it will be reviewed collectively after the deadline for manuscript submission.

板栗爸爸 2021-06-03

First round of minor revisions. Currently, pending editor decision for the third day. Feeling anxious. Hasn't it always been fast? Why is it taking so long? Will this state lead to rejection?

柠檬舅舅_ 2021-05-29

Maybe it's because the field I research is relatively niche, there are few articles of this type. After writing in English, I directly went to the English editing service provided by remote sensing for proofreading. The proofreading process was fast, and I received the edited manuscript in about three to four days. They marked the parts they were afraid of changing the original meaning when making revisions and asked me to check. Then I submitted the manuscript, and it took a while for the assistant editor assigned by the editorial department to send it for external review (maybe because I submitted on April 29 and it was sent for external review on May 5, probably because my assistant editor is from Tianjin, China). However, the review process was fast, and I received two minor revisions in about 15 days. After submitting the revisions, I received the acceptance for publication the next day. Then I paid the Article Processing Charges (APC), and now I can view it online! It's now May 29, exactly one month since I submitted the manuscript. I hope to bring good luck to every hardworking researcher! Research is not easy! Everything should go smoothly! Keep up the good work, everyone! Thank you!

ashyash小蜗 2021-05-27

May I ask how things are going now?

步羽 2021-05-25

After 40 days of initial submission, only one expert among the three reviewers raised concerns and shortcomings regarding my paper. The final decision given by the editor was to reject and resubmit. After 20 days of the second submission, the reviewer suggested minor revisions to be completed within 5 days, and my paper was accepted after the changes were made. I feel that this journal is quite reputable within the industry. The editor is responsible and handles manuscripts promptly. Whenever I had questions and sent emails, the editor would respond promptly and patiently. I am also grateful for the polishing provided by Let-Pub. The first submission experience was relatively comfortable. By the way, I wish everyone good news.

BITer 2021-05-13

Hello, may I ask how to determine whether the reviewer's comments suggest major revisions or minor revisions?

BITer 2021-05-13

After 50 days of review, the status changed from "under review" to "pending decision". It has been three days since it became "pending decision", and I am anxiously awaiting the results. Hoping for good news.

Also, in the system, it shows that after 21 days of submission, two reviewers have already provided their reviews. I don't know why it took 50 days to become "pending decision" and there was a gap of around 30 days in between. If anyone knows, please kindly explain. Thank you.

Wishing everyone success in their submissions and academic endeavors!

lideguo 2021-05-12

Personally, I believe that this journal has the same problems as domestic journals, and they are not responsible towards the authors. I have submitted three manuscripts (different papers), and all of them were directly rejected by editors in Wuhan without any reasons provided for the rejection. I agree with the rejection, but at least they should give a reason for it. Even if the manuscript is rejected by another journal, they usually provide several suggestions for improvement, which would allow me to make further revisions and provide an opportunity for the author to learn and improve. Furthermore, if we choose to submit to this journal, it means we have read several articles from the journal. I personally believe that they wouldn't be so negligent as to not even give a reason for rejection.

JauSs 2021-05-11

4.3 Submitted
On 4.22, two reviewers provided feedback. Reviewer 1 suggested downgrading the manuscript, questioning its lack of innovation. Reviewer 2 pointed out writing issues and believed that insufficient details prevented non-professionals from following along. Overall, there were 3 "must" changes and 2 "can" changes, which is unfortunate. Both reviewers provided detailed suggestions for modifications, but did not question the experiments. The academic editor found it interesting and requested major revisions.
On 4.27, major revisions were made, focusing on the abstract, introduction, and conclusion, and detailed explanations were provided for the reviewers' concerns.
On 4.28, the system showed the reviewers' second round of evaluations, which were both positive. (Everyone can see the reviewers' comments in the system in advance, both first and second rounds!)
On 4.29, pending editor decision.
On 5.11, an acceptance email was received for English review.

Neo_J 2021-05-11

03.31 Submission
04.17 Major revision, three suggested changes (the 24th suggestion returned, ten days for revision)
04.26 Revised manuscript returned
05.06 Minor revision, one suggested change
05.07 Revised manuscript returned
05.11 Accepted

Neo_J 2021-05-11

The editing speed is super fast.

Pancras 2021-05-07

2021.3.29 Submission Received
2021.3.29 Assistant Editor Assigned
2021.3.29 Undergoing Review
2021.4.07 Major Revisions (Three reviewers, the first reviewer provided over ten revisions, while the other two provided minor revisions with five suggestions each)
2021.4.19 Manuscript Resubmitted
2021.5.6 Officially Accepted

The editor communicated promptly and was responsible. There were three reviewers, one of whom provided a significant number of suggestions, which were quite sharp. However, these suggestions indeed improved the quality. Thumbs up to the editor for being diligent and responsible.

JauSs 2021-05-06

Hello, are you the one who returned the revised manuscript and accepted it during the 51 holiday? After the major revision on April 28th, I could see the positive comments from two reviewers, but it has been pending editor decision until now. I am very anxious.

atomicdog 2021-05-05

2021.03.24 Submission
2021.04.12 Major revision
2021.04.25 Return for revision
2021.05.01 Minor revision
2021.05.03 Return for revision
2021.05.04 Acceptance

科比布莱恩特 2021-04-24

Received Date: 20 March 2021
Revised Date: 21 April 2021
Accepted Date: 23 April 2021

I submitted two articles voluntarily in January this year and they were rejected for review. Two months ago, I was unexpectedly invited to submit another article. After going through a major revision, a minor revision, and receiving a bunch of comments from the academic editor, it was finally accepted yesterday.

GIS 2021-04-20

Posting 2 articles for review. Three reviewers were assigned for each article. In the first round, all reviewers suggested major revisions. The feedback was very detailed, with a total of 69 suggestions for one article. It was very painful to make the changes. Both articles couldn't be revised properly within the given time frame, so an extension was requested for both. Personally, I don't think they can be published as easily as some people claim. Perhaps it's because of the paid service. The entire editing process was really smooth, and the communication and feedback were timely. The final proofreading and editing were also very meticulous.

ozoz 2021-04-13

4.12 Submit revised version
4.13 Accepted