My Account Submit My Manuscript
Letpub, Scientific Editing Services, Manuscript Editing Service

Remote Sensing

   For Publishers  New

Browse Journals by Title


Journal name:   ISSN:   Subject area:   IF range: -
Index:   Category:   Open Access:   Sort by:
Journal Cover Design
APA has partnered with LetPub to provide a full suite of author services

[Remote Sensing]Hello, you are Visitor Number 103020 on this page.

Journal Profile
Journal TitleRemote Sensing
Journal Title AbbreviationsREMOTE SENS-BASEL
ISSN2072-4292
h-index81
CiteScore
CiteScoreSJRSNIPCiteScore Rank
6.601.2851.708
Subject fieldQuartilesRankPercentile
Category: Earth and Planetary Sciences
Subcategory: Earth and Planetary Sciences (all)
Q118 / 186

Self-Citation Ratio (2019-2020)34.20%
Official Websitehttp://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing
Online Manuscript Submissionhttps://login.mdpi.com/login?_target_path=https%3A%2F%2Fsusy.mdpi.com%2Fuser%2Flogin%3FauthAll%3Dtrue
Open AccessYes
Publisher
Subject AreaREMOTE SENSING
Country/Area of PublicationSWITZERLAND
Publication Frequency
Year Publication Started2009
Annual Article Volume2987
Indexing (SCI or SCIE)Science Citation Index Expanded
Link to PubMed Central (PMC)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog?term=2072-4292%5BISSN%5D
Average Duration of Peer Review *Authorized Data from Publisher: 20.66 Day(s)
Data from Authors: Ordinary, 3-8 Week(s)
Competitiveness *Data from Authors:
Useful Links
Relevant Journals 【Remote Sensing】CiteScore Trend
Comments from Authors
*All review process metrics, such as acceptance rate and review speed, are limited to our user-submitted manuscripts. As such they may not reflect the journals' exact competitiveness or speed.
  • Journals in the Same Subject Area
  • CiteScore Trend


First    Previous    1    2    3    Next    Last  (To Page
/3)
  Reviews on Remote Sensing: Write a review
Author: averyliu7854


Subject Area: Engineering
Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s)
Result: Rejected


Write a review

Reviewed 2020-01-04 10:33:31
The manuscript was refused without being sent for review. 2019.12.31: Submit and pending review; 2020.1.3: Reject. “We are writing to inform you that we will not be able to process your submission further. Submissions sent for peer-review are selected on the basis of discipline, novelty and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in scholarly journals. Therefore, our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your work. We wish you every success if you choose to submit it elsewhere.” Friends, do you have same experience?

(4) Thank | averyliu7854

Author: YYY_XXX


Subject Area: Geoscience
Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s)
Result: Rejected


Write a review

Reviewed 2019-05-20 12:01:38
“We are writing to inform you that we will not be able to process your paper further. Papers sent for peer-review are selected on the basis of discipline, novelty and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in scholarly journals. Therefore, our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research. We wish you every success if you choose to submit the paper elsewhere.” I had published one before, but the one now was rejected in a second.

(5) Thank | YYY_XXX

Author: 爱笑的小飞鱼


Subject Area: Engineering
Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2019-05-19 14:54:44
It’s difficult to get published on this journal for the large number of submissions and the focus on innovation. The editor was strict, only the innovative articles will be sent for review. The review rate is 20%. The first submission was rejected in seconds and the second one added content to highlight the innovative points, but it was rejected too in seconds for the reason of not novel enough. The third submission was made full improvement for the experiment after two rejected experiences, and finally was sent for review. Submitted on April 19, 2019, and major revision required after ten days on May 1, 2019. All the three reviewers found my article was interesting. The first reviewer, a remote sensing expert, was very careful and sharply pointed out 27 questions in the article; The second reviewer, a peer, praised my article for good writing and structure with innovative ideas, and he also proposed the adjustment of section order and up to 22 comments; The third reviewer, an expert peer, although he thought the innovation was acceptable, he spoke fiercely and pointed out 5 questions, the last question was difficult to solve, but it’s related to the topic of the article. Revision returned on May 11, 2019 and minor revision was made on May 17, 2019. The academic editor felt that the first reviewer really did not understand the article, so the article was only sent to the second and third reviewers in the second review. The second reviewer was satisfied and agreed to accept it and the third reviewer was basically satisfied with a minor revision required. The revised submission for minor revision was on the same day. The editing process was very fast, and it just took 20 minutes to be waiting for the editor’s decision. It was officially accepted on May 19, 2019. It’s up to the academic editor or editor-in-chief decides whether to accept or not, which took 2 days. It is better to have the good command of English for the article. Although it’s an open access journal, the quality of journal articles was of good quality and the review was rigorous.

(9) Thank | 爱笑的小飞鱼

Author: GDUT


Subject Area: Geoscience
Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2017-11-30 20:29:45
Submitted-Sept. 26, Rejected-Sept. 27. The format was wrong, so we corrected the format and submitted again. Resubmitted-Sept. 28, Major revision-Nov. 24, Accepted-Nov. 30. My paper is on hyperspectral remote sensing classification. First I wanted to submit to the TGRS, but since I wanted to apply to a foreign graduate program, and this journal is known to be fast, I submitted here. At the beginning, there were two reviewers. One reviewer was very positive about my paper, praised my article from various aspects, and then asked two minor questions at the end. Although the other reviewer was also positive about my article, they obviously didn't understand it and only asked a few questions. The editor-in-chief then found another reviewer, who must be an expert. I was asked me to use various statistical methods to verify the proposed method and other methods. I haven't even heard of a lot of the techincal terms used in the comments. I have read hundreds of articles in hyperspectral classification but I have never seen anyone using these many statistical methods. I revised the paper following each of the review comments, and my neck hurt for several days afterwards. Finally accepted. From this submission experience, I feel the quality of this journal is slowly rising. Of course, still not as good as TGRS.

(1) Thank | GDUT

Author: Wuwei


Subject Area: Geoscience
Duration of Peer Review: 4.0 month(s)
Result: Rejected


Write a review

Reviewed 2019-02-14 15:13:23
Previously, one post, and then one, three reviewers, two support, one is a bit harsh, after one overhaul, two agreed to receive, the other said not suitablePublications, the results are rejected, depending on the reviewer, as long as one objection is rejected, the submission is difficult.
Show Review in Original Language
(1) Thank | Wuwei

Author: mindfy


Subject Area: Engineering
Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2019-01-15 09:56:34
Speed ​​is really fast, lastThe article is very fast, this one is even more amazing.May be the reason for being assigned to the Special Issue.Submitted by 2018.12.112019.12.23 overhaul2019.01.02 repaired back2019.01.11 employmentPublished by 2019.01.14The efficiency is really good...However, the TGRS second trial of the submitment has not been reflected for more than two months.
Show Review in Original Language
(3) Thank | mindfy

Author: ttenv


Subject Area: Geoscience
Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2019-01-02 13:07:58
Two years of MDPI viral development reputation fell scary, a bunch of people on Twitter are looking at MDPI is a predetoray publisher, Stanford University scholar Ken Caldeira directly to MDPI published are junk science, also said that these articles brought to the academic circleA negative effect.I have also published a few articles myself, a little worried.
Show Review in Original Language
(34) Thank | ttenv

Author: aspirewang


Subject Area: Engineering
Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-12-19 17:34:06
November 17 contribution, 12On the 9th, the first review returned the comments. The three reviewers were very professional. The questions raised were very accurate. The overall opinions were very good. The editor gave the minor repairs, the deadline was 5 days, submitted on December 14, and the second review returned on December 17.They all agreed to publish in one sentence and were acceptd on December 19.The overall feeling of review is really fast. I heard that the first trial time for reviewers is limited to 20 days. The editors are very responsible and the questions raised are very accurate.
Show Review in Original Language
(0) Thank | aspirewang

Author: 遥感人


Subject Area: Geoscience
Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s)
Result: Rejected


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-12-07 14:49:42
RS is now so difficult to select, the article submitted less than 2 days, it is a tragedy, saying that the quality of the article does not meet the requirements of the journal, did not send the external review editor directly refused, depressed
Show Review in Original Language
(9) Thank | 遥感人

Author: 烦恼风


Subject Area: Geoscience
Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-10-24 11:06:53
Because of the impact factor and partition, I switched to the RS from the original planned J-STARS.In all fairness, the overall quality of J-STARS is slightly higher than RS, or almost the same.However, because of the high self-introduction rate of RS and the large number of articles, it has caused so much difference between the two IFs.The IF and the Chinese Academy of Sciences divisions are sometimes ridiculous, and those who do research work in the field have to be led by them.
Show Review in Original Language
(26) Thank | 烦恼风

Author: 呵呵


Subject Area: Geoscience
Duration of Peer Review: 3.0 month(s)
Result: Pending & Unknown


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-09-12 08:37:34
June 12th contribution;On July 14th, overhaul, 3 reviewers had a total of 22 comments, and one of the reviewers suggested rejecting the draft.I gave it 10 days, applied for 20 days, and spent 17 days;Re-submitment after the amendment on July 31;On August 20th, overhaul, 3 reviewers totaled 42 comments and gave 11 days;On August 30, the select was re-submitted;On September 5, Xiao Xiu, two reviewers, gave a total of three comments and gave them five days;On September 9, the revised re-attend.I feel that most of the reviewers are very professional, that is, there is a problem with a reviewer, but it is indeed insufficient.
Show Review in Original Language
(1) Thank | 呵呵

Author: 嘎嘎


Subject Area: Engineering
Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-08-22 09:39:09
Reviewing speed is very fast.The three reviewers, the first two comments are more positive, the third reviewer raised 30 questions, directly asked the forced, several difficult to answer, need to supplement the experimental data.The comments were returned 10 days after submission, and all three reviewers agreed to receive them.
Show Review in Original Language
(0) Thank | 嘎嘎

Author: 飞翔的草帽


Subject Area: Geoscience
Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-08-10 10:49:16
The speed is very fast, the opinions of the five experts are quite good. I feel that the reviewer is looking for a professional, the responsible editor is not the professional, and whether he accepts the opinions of the main reviewers.The feeling is that the quality of the paper is getting stricter with the increase in manuscripts and the increase in impact factors.
Show Review in Original Language
(1) Thank | 飞翔的草帽

Author: tiberr


Subject Area: Engineering and Materials
Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s)
Result: Rejected


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-08-08 19:50:43
The second day was edited and rejected.
Show Review in Original Language
(1) Thank | tiberr

Author: baixxiong@163.com


Subject Area: Geoscience
Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-08-08 10:16:04
received: 27 June 2018;Accepted: 3 August 2018;Published online: 4 August 2018Four reviewers, two clearly given minor repairs, two did not clearly point out, the overall comments are very professional, and one of the reviewers also partially modified the language, I am very grateful.After submitting the draft for 20 days, I will return to the reviewer's opinion and give it a week. I will complete the submission one day in advance. The next day (the deadline for the editor) will be reviewed by the reviewer and editor. The next day is waiting for the editorial decision.8.3 Give me the final correction draft and ask for a 24-hour return. Since the problem is not big, I will return and pay the fee on the same day and publish it online the next day.Overall feeling, not bad.
Show Review in Original Language
(0) Thank | baixxiong@163.com

Author: zhouc0129@163.com


Subject Area: Geoscience
Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-08-03 12:45:45
The review speed is very fast, 6.16 submissions, 6.27 return three people review comments, the opinions are very professional, and one reviewer gave 7 pages of review comments.The editor gave the overhaul, but only gave ten days of modification time. It was not enough. The application was postponed for ten days.Submitted after 7.17 revision, the editor sent it back to the original reviewer, and received it at 7.26.After the proof, the layout fee, the 8.2 online, the speed is still very fast.
Show Review in Original Language
(1) Thank | zhouc0129@163.com

Author: zhouc0129@163.com


Subject Area: Geoscience
Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-08-03 12:45:36
The review speed is very fast, 6.16 submissions, 6.27 return three people review comments, the opinions are very professional, and one reviewer gave 7 pages of review comments.The editor gave the overhaul, but only gave ten days of modification time. It was not enough. The application was postponed for ten days.Submitted after 7.17 revision, the editor sent it back to the original reviewer, and received it at 7.26.After the proof, the layout fee, the 8.2 online, the speed is still very fast.
Show Review in Original Language
(0) Thank | zhouc0129@163.com

Author: koroo


Subject Area: Information Science
Duration of Peer Review: 3.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-07-10 13:24:53
Review is rough, but not good.More than the spam journals of sensors, the junk journal actually 3,000 waters a year, really wants human life
Show Review in Original Language
(0) Thank | koroo

Author: dd


Subject Area: Geoscience
Duration of Peer Review: 3.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-07-03 09:48:25
Submitted in April, received at the end of June, online in July, the speed is still very fast.I found three reviewers, one minor repair, and the other two did not specifically say, but the meaning should be minor repairs, and the editor gave the overhaul opinions.The three reviewers looked very carefully, although everyone had more than fifty questions....However, in general, there are only two major problems in the content. There are 20 days before and after the change (personal reasons, two applications for extension in the middle), and submitted to Xiaoxiu after one week.It is much easier to make minor repairs. The two reviewers have a total of eight questions and gave them two days. However, they were changed in less than one day. After submitting, they waited for another twenty days and were finally notified by the article.Personally, the journal is highly efficient, the manuscript is seriously responsible, and the reviewers who are looking for are all big bulls in the industry. The questions raised are very professional. After the revision, the article has been greatly improved.The downside is that the layout fee is slightly more expensive.
Show Review in Original Language
(3) Thank | dd

Author: 科比


Subject Area: Geoscience
Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-06-29 18:06:22
Submitted in late May;Submitted for trial in early June;On June 10th, all three opinions were returned. The first expert suggested minor repairs, the second expert suggested direct employment, and the third expert suggested re-submitment after rejecting the draft... The editorial suggestion was overhaul... only for 10 daysAn overhaul opportunity;On June 23, the overhaul was re-submited (because the re-touching application was extended for three days), and finally the third expert was moved, giving only one wrong language opinion;On June 29th, the use of
Show Review in Original Language
(1) Thank | 科比

Author: wq_feng@whu.edu.cn


Subject Area: Geoscience
Duration of Peer Review: 1.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-06-21 15:20:41
After giving the select, he gave the overhaul opinion. Generally, it is required to change the submission within 10 days, and the second overhaul opportunity is not given. If the overhaul is still after the overhaul, there is still a negative review opinion.Rejected, so you need to overhaul.At that time, there was something delay in my hand, and it was extended to the editorial department for one week, but it was finally accepted.Overall, taking it seriously is still good.
Show Review in Original Language
(0) Thank | wq_feng@whu.edu.cn

Author: 咔嚓


Subject Area: Geoscience
Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-06-18 12:36:42
After giving the select, he gave the overhaul opinion, and even asked to change the submission within 10 days, and did not give the second overhaul (if the second overhaul was directly rejected), it was almost not even in those days.Exhausted.Fortunately, I was accepted.
Show Review in Original Language
(0) Thank | 咔嚓

Author: yang


Subject Area: Geoscience
Duration of Peer Review: 3.0 month(s)
Result: Rejected


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-05-29 14:26:44
Very good remote sensing journals have high requirements for the innovation of the article. The five reviewers are very professional. The questions raised are very difficult and tragic. They gave a major overhaul.Opportunity!
Show Review in Original Language
(3) Thank | yang

Author: Illidanshoe


Subject Area: Geoscience
Duration of Peer Review: 5.0 month(s)
Result: Accepted after revision


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-05-20 14:59:16
Published on December 21, 2017, received overhaul on January 11, 18, and three reviewers completed a major overhaul.Overhaul for 10 days.On January 23, another minor repair was given.The second reviewer was very serious, read my article carefully and understood the article.February 7th pending editor decision.On February 15th, the academic editor made a bunch of comments, suggesting a re-submitment after the revision.On March 5th, he re-submited. After the re-submitment, he sent two reviewers, and on April 12, he overhauled. One of the two reviewers gave a major overhaul and one gave a minor repair.The first reviewer read the article very carefully.I found a lot of problems.Returned to minor repairs on April 25.Revisited both reviewers agree.On May 2nd, May 8th and May 11th, the academic editor gave three rounds of minor modifications.Accepted on May 17.After 8 rounds of huge engineering changes.In short, this journal has become more and more rigorous with the improvement of the impact factor, requiring the article to be innovative.A total of five reviewers were found in the two rounds of submission.And some reviewers are very serious.Give the article a big boost.
Show Review in Original Language
(3) Thank | Illidanshoe

Author: lucky


Subject Area: Geoscience
Duration of Peer Review: 2.0 month(s)
Result: Rejected


Write a review

Reviewed 2018-05-18 10:05:47
April 2nd submission, April 23 overhaul, four reviewers, the attitude is very mild, the second reviewer gave the most opinions, 40.MDPI English correction, two days, very quickly, the quality does not feel good.Return to the revised draft on April 30th.On May 15th, I received the review comments. The first reviewer said that there are still many mistakes in English. It is recommended to find a native speaker to modify it. There is no problem in the content.The second reviewer receives it.The third reviewer suggested minor changes and gave two comments.The fourth reviewer pointed out the 6-point grammar question and helped correct it. It should also be received or changed.The guest editor refused to re-submit and refused to re-submit, saying that the originality is not very high, it is recommended to select for another journal, which is also a special issue.Then I found out that the journal editor of another journal is still him....Crash, I thought I would receive a minor repair, the result refused
Show Review in Original Language
(1) Thank | lucky

First    Previous    1    2    3    Next    Last  (To Page
/3)

Start your review of [Remote Sensing]:





Disclaimer: All information sourced directly from the journals is subject to change. Please use the journal homepage link to verify all information prior to submission.


© 2010-2021  ACCDON LLC 400 5th Ave, Suite 530, Waltham, MA 02451, USA
PrivacyTerms of Service