Overall impression: The quality of a considerable number of RAL articles can reach or exceed the level of TRO short paper. There are individual articles whose quality has exceeded TRO, the number of pages is merely a little less. The quality of most articles is comparable to JFR/RAS/AURO. Generally speaking, it is a high-quality journal in the robotics field. Journal characteristics: RAL pays more attention to innovation and examines whether new ideas are conveyed, such as whether the method is novel, and whether it has opened up pioneering research directions. Due to the maximum of 8 pages, RAL’s requirements for experimental integrity are not as high as journals with relatively long articles, such as TRO/RAS/AURO. Review speed: the first review comments are usually given in two months, and one month for making revision, and then another month for giving the second review comments. It is worth mentioning that the probability of rejection in the RAL second review is not low.

(1268) Thank | 明月何曾是两乡

In the submission with ICRA at the end of 2018, I did not expect that the IF of the former one rushed to Q1 of JCR ROBOTICS. With fewer articles in the top journals of the robot every year, RAL continues to be bullish.

(411) Thank | Gomendy

Great, thank you for letting me know!

(0) Thank | lizonggui

Submitted RA-L on the 31st, the status remained Received from the 31st to the 8th. Today it directly changed to Decision Pending. Is this a sign of rejection? An interesting point: the RA-L website stated that authors could choose single-blind or double-blind before the 31st, but strictly enforced double-blind from the 1st. I chose single-blind, could this be the reason? Was it due to timing?

(0) Thank | zouqingxiao

Hello, the email I sent did not include any attachments, only mentioning the paper title, the previous manuscript number, and the new manuscript number. The response to the review comments has been uploaded in the submission system.

(0) Thank | xgkjdxgz

Hello, may I ask what documents need to be attached to the emails sent to the eic and se after resubmitting a rejected manuscript? Do we need to include the previous reviewer comments and responses? Thank you!

(0) Thank | lizonggui

Thanks, brother.

(0) Thank | RQ.1314

Yes, the editor mentioned in the decision letter that after re-submission, an email should be sent to the EIC and SE for explanation. I did send emails for both re-submissions, and after some time, the manuscript was assigned back to the original SE.

(0) Thank | xgkjdxgz

[meiguiz] Posted on: 2024-11-29 16:42:41
Why was the paper rejected again after revising and resubmitting? Did they change the reviewer?
-----------------------------------
The reviewers were not changed. One of the three reviewers accepted it, one pointed out minor issues, and one said that there was still one point that was not fully addressed.

(0) Thank | WOT

-----------------Updated on March 30, 2025--------------
January 24, 2025: revised and resubmitted, still assigned to the reviewer who had comments last time.
March 10, 2025: Another round of revise and resubmit, surprising, possibly because one reviewer raised a minor point that couldn't be rejected.
March 27, 2025: Accept

After nearly nine months of waiting without major revisions or major issues and with the same reviewers, the experience was dragging and picking on minor flaws. The associate editor was not very decisive, overall experience was average. However, in terms of individual submissions, the final result can be obtained in about 4-5 months, which is acceptable in terms of speed.

(0) Thank | WOT

Hello, do I need to send a separate email to notify the editor when re-submitting in this situation?

(0) Thank | RQ.1314

There is no doubt that RA-L has a fast publication speed for short papers, and overall the difficulty is also moderate. Having real robot experiments should indeed make it relatively easier to be accepted. 
Just sharing some good luck with time:
11-23 Submission Received
12-2 Under Review
1-24 Decision Pending
1-27 Revise and resubmit 
2-17 Resubmit
3-25 Accept
There may have been a DP between 2-17 and 3-25 that I didn't notice.

(0) Thank | JoeyYu

Record a rather lengthy submission process

2024.7.1 submit
2024.7.7 under review
2024.9.13 rejected (welcome to resubmit it) The reviewer found the proposed method promising but suggested additional experiments for validation. The editor believed that one month might not be enough for revisions, hence the rejection, but encouraged resubmission after revisions.

2024.10.14 resubmit
2024.11.23 under review
2025.2.9 rejected (welcome to resubmit it) The same reviewer provided some writing suggestions (such as emphasizing the novelty and adding more analysis on the supplementary experiments), but the editor still rejected it, likely due to the decision-making process nearing 4 months, exceeding the timeline.

2025.2.17 resubmit
2025.3.26 accept

After going through two rounds of revisions, the quality of the paper significantly improved. Grateful to the editor and reviewers.

(0) Thank | xgkjdxgz

Submitted: December 21, 2024
Under review: January 9, 2025
Under review: March 23, 2025

(0) Thank | rikya

You mentioned that the final draft was online shortly after submission. How long is "shortly" approximately?

(0) Thank | csdncdsjckan

You said the final draft was online soon after submission, how soon is soon?

(0) Thank | csdncdsjckan

I would like to ask if there will be any issues if I extend RA-L to Trans after submitting it? Just like extending ICRA/IROS.

(0) Thank | JL-Picard

Submitted in April 24, underwent one round of revisions, accepted second round of revisions in August, the final draft was quickly published online, and finally officially published in November. There were a total of three reviewers, one of whom was particularly meticulous, going through the formulas and pointing out any errors and unclear expressions. It took a month to respond to the reviewers' comments, greatly improving the quality of the paper. Overall, the submission experience was good, and the editors were very professional.

(0) Thank | tt

Submission Timeline
Submitted: October 9, 2024
Under review: November 18, 2024
Revised and Resubmitted: December 26, 2024
Submitted: January 27, 2025
Decision pending: March 14, 2025
Accepted: March 16, 2025

(0) Thank | csdncdsjckan

It should meet this format.

(0) Thank | MoonSheep

Before April 1st, a non-double-blind format can be used, but starting on April 1st, double-blind is mandatory. In early March, I also used the double-blind format and submitted it for review, so either format can be used during this period.

(0) Thank | MoonSheep

Could you please clarify if the current submission is in double-blind format or if there is no need to hide the authors' information? It seems that there is a conflict between the official website and the submission system.

(0) Thank | hash_lee

Yes, it is necessary to comply with the requirements, as after review you may be asked to add experiments and content, which is taken into consideration.

(0) Thank | dp9527

Do we have to use the meeting format template provided by him for the initial draft? But it seems different from the final draft template.

(0) Thank | 蹬三轮的小司机

Do we have to use the meeting format template provided by him for the initial draft?

(0) Thank | 蹬三轮的小司机