Let’s talk about my submission experience. It is the second article being accepted. There were three reviewers in the first review, one of them accepted it, one required minor revision, and one rejected it. The editor rejected it. The reviewer who gave rejection was very serious, he firstly affirmed our work, including the plan, theoretical analysis, etc., and gave a good evaluation. The only thing was that the editor thought our assumptions were problematic. So, the editor gave the rejection finally. I was not reconciled to this result, so I sent an email to the editor-in-chief, explained the rationality of our hypothesis, and asked if there would be a chance to resubmit. The editor-in-chief was responsible, he wrote back in a few days and asked me to revise it carefully and contact with him when I resubmitted. I resubmitted it after revision in two weeks. The review was so quick this time, the review comments came back in about one month. The editor gave minor revision; the reviewers who originally rejected the manuscript gave acceptance. But there still one reviewer gave minor revision. This reviewer left me speechless. In the first review, he gave minor revision and asked me to cite four of his articles. To be honest, these four articles were not really related, but the scenes were similar. So I only cited two of them. In the second review, he still asked me to cite the rest two articles, which made me speechless. I had no choice but citing. I revised it for three days and submitted it. The editor-in-chief was awesome this time. It was accepted 40 minutes after submission. The editor was still quite responsible and replied the email every time. A controversial experience succeeded.

(13) Thank | 吴迪小哥

Generally speaking, the time is relatively normal, and the review comments are much professional. The specific opinions are as follows: Decision: 24-May-2019 Accept; Resubmission: 21-May-2019; Decision: 15-May-2019; Minor Revision Resubmission: 12-Apr-2019; Decision: 12-Feb- 2019; Major Revision Submission: 27-Nov-2018

(7) Thank | Wireless Lee

I submitted it in the middle of June 2018, and it was not until August 2018 that the editor sent it for under review. At the beginning of January 2019, the results of the first review came out, two major revision, one minor revision. At the end of January 2019, I submitted the revision. At the beginning of March 2019, the results of the second review came out, two acceptance, one minor revision. It should be accepted if there’s no accident. Maybe the content I wrote met the topic of this journal very well, so it went well. It was just the (period of) first review was too long, even though I sent an email to urge it.

(0) Thank | 大朱气气

Broad range and large backlog of accepted articles.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

18-Nov-2022: Original Manuscript Submission
02-Feb-2023: 1st Round Review: MAJOR Revision
22-Mar-2023: 1st Round Revision Submission
09-Sept-2023: 2nd Round Review: MAJOR Revision
01-Nov-2023: 2nd Round Revision Submission
07-Jan-2024: Accepted
08-Jan-2024: Copyright Transferred
02-Feb-2024: Published
Published in: IEEE Systems Journal (Volume: 18, Issue: 1, March 2024)

(0) Thank | The Frontier

Always been asking for no more than 12 pages.

(0) Thank | The Frontier

2024.11.26 Submit
2024.11.26 Under Review

(0) Thank | Climber

Do not accept articles with heavy military color.

(0) Thank | hunter_5

The impact factor is almost dropping below 3. It would be good if we could maintain it in the 3 range.

(0) Thank | PQOGJCK

Can this journal return to Zone 2 this year?

(1) Thank | 大头丸子

July 17, 2024    Submitted to journal

(0) Thank | wyyflww

Is there a page limit for submissions?

(0) Thank | chahahaha

Is there a limit on the number of pages?

(0) Thank | chahahaha

The pre-coding direction I submitted was submitted at 10 pm on May 21st, and the response received on May 22nd exceeded the scope

(0) Thank | 旅行者

Do you have any rejected articles that are beyond the scope? How long does it usually take to receive a rejection response?

(0) Thank | guo776

After submission, the status will be under review. What will it change to if an ADM is invited or enters the review stage?

(0) Thank | guo776

The review speed was moderate, the comments from the reviewers were very constructive, and there was a clear improvement after revisions. It took around 8 months from submission to acceptance. The timeline is as follows:
May 2023: Submit, Awaiting Assignment (Under Review the same day)
August 2023: Major Revision
October 2023: Resubmit
Early December 2023: Minor Revision
Late December 2023: Resubmit
Late January 2024: Acceptance

(0) Thank | ZXNzxn1

I missed the deadline for submitting a major revision because I didn't have time to send it back. The submission system was closed. Later, I contacted the editor and they reopened the system. It should be possible to email the editor with valid reasons

(0) Thank | Anthony_BUAA

Has anyone requested an additional two weeks for revisions after receiving a Major Revision?

(0) Thank | CharlieNie

Has anyone requested more than two weeks for revisions after being given a Major revision?

(0) Thank | CharlieNie

The impact factor of 4.4 has dropped to Zone 3 of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. I wonder what's going on with this journal, it used to be in Zone 2 for several years, even though it's not Trans

(0) Thank | AlexCoder

2023.06.29 under review
2023.11.16 major revision Three experts have given at least 31 comments, incisive and admirable.
2024.01.05 major revision Modified version has been submitted

(0) Thank | Eno-Z

Submitted two papers in 23 years. One was submitted in early February and rejected in mid-August. The other was submitted in early April, revised in early August, and accepted in early January of the following year. The review speed feels average and is related to the quality of the manuscript. For the first paper, there were five reviewers, with controversial opinions due to the average quality, and it was ultimately rejected. For the second paper, three reviewers had relatively positive opinions, with one providing more than ten suggestions. The review quality for both papers was good, with a well-rounded summary and insightful pointers on the issues, greatly helping with the manuscript quality

(2) Thank | Anthony_BUAA

The review process is too slow

(2) Thank | ZZHUANG

2023.06.29 under review
2023.11.16 major revision Three experts provided at least 31 comments, insightful and admirable

(7) Thank | Eno-Z