First review for 2 months: Major revision, 2 months for the second review.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

2025.2.24 Under Review
2025.3.9 Under review
2025.3.24 Under Review
2025.4.17 Major Revision
2025.5.20 Under Review (R1)
2025.6.4 Accepted

(0) Thank | 塔克拉玛干

Submission in the direction of IC design.
After a month of submission, received the first review comments.
There were 4 reviewers in the first round, who raised 36 questions mainly related to circuit design, process manufacturing, and practical testing.
Made revisions based on reviewers' comments. The revised manuscript was submitted and received the final decision after a couple of weeks, with direct acceptance.
The editors and administrators were very responsible, and I would like to express my special thanks.
Finally, I wish everyone smooth submissions.

(0) Thank | Jackson__

The first article is the March major repair and March minor repair record. The second article further work was rejected directly for 10 days, saying that pure simulation work is not needed. Am I not pure simulation to invest in you? Don't know to invest in TCAD, TCS1?

(0) Thank | fulogo

Hello, may I ask if your submission is already under review?

(0) Thank | 朱株

Isn't this supposed to be 8-14 pages? Will there be an extra charge for exceeding 9 pages?

(0) Thank | 余铭

请提供待翻译的文本。

(0) Thank | eehe

2024-06-01 early morning accept as a small Children's Day gift
Wishing everyone all the best

(0) Thank | aZzZz5

TVLSI's reviewers have become increasingly strict over the past two years.
Submitted on February 3, 2024
Received major revision results on March 21, 2024. Four reviewers, two minor revision suggestions, and two pointing out key issues. Responded with a 26-page response.
Major revision submitted on April 11, 2024
Received minor revision results on May 2, 2024. One reviewer still has some concerns.
Minor revision submitted on May 9, 2024, awaiting results

(2) Thank | aZzZz5

Please translate the following paragraph into English and Japanese, and title them "" and "

(0) Thank | eehe

I am a rookie, this is the first Trans during my PhD, the fourth SCI paper to be accepted, the process is full of twists and turns. The circuit has good performance and clever innovation, but it has not been fabricated. One flaw was caught by a reviewer, I didn't follow the reviewer's suggestions and got severely criticized.

Background: An idea in October 22, due to other work at that time, temporarily postponed, completed writing the paper in February 23, and submitted it in March.

First round: 40 days to get results, four reviewers had a lot of comments, major revisions were required. After carefully revising for a month, it was submitted.

Second round: Results in a month, major revisions were needed. One reviewer's issues were resolved, another reviewer had only a small problem, and two reviewers still had issues. After about twenty days of revisions, it was submitted, stubbornly not listening to one reviewer's suggestions and pushing back.

One month later (end of July 23), received the news, reject. At that time, I couldn't even swallow a bite of the takeout, wanted to jump off a building, isn't it said that major revisions are acceptable? Fortunately, the editor suggested a good revision, and it will be resubmitted four months later. The following is the main text:

Late November 23: Submit
Early January 1st, 24: Minor revision, two of the previous four reviewers were resolved, and two new reviewers were added (in addition to the two old ones), one old reviewer was resolved, leaving three reviewers with opinions.
February 19th, 24: Minor revision, only one reviewer left, with contradictory opinions to the previous reviewers, so it had to be revised back.
March 27th, 24: accepted

(1) Thank | eehe

The reason for writing for two months is mainly because I received minor revisions. After looking through it once, I felt that it was basically stable. There are also many articles that only went through one major revision without any minor revisions

(0) Thank | FrankZ1994

Three reviewers
One major revision in the first round, one minor revision, and two major revisions, lasted one month with an additional major experiment added.
In the second round, one minor revision, one extra reference added (you know what I mean), two sentences added to the introduction, returned for revision the next day

(0) Thank | FrankZ1994

Submitted on 6th June 2023 after the first major revision on 20th August 2023, lasting for one month.
Submitted the day after the second minor revision on 14th September 2023.
Received on 29th September 2023.
Submitted the final version on 1st October 2023

(1) Thank | FrankZ1994

May I ask how long it took to complete the first major overhaul?

(0) Thank | Zowie.

Submit by the end of May, after two rounds of major and minor revisions, accept by the end of October.

All four reviewers were very responsible, and the quality of the paper did improve significantly after making revisions based on their suggestions.

(0) Thank | 振鹭于飞

"Waiting for the result after submission..."

(0) Thank | 振鹭于飞

2There is no result for more than 2 months, it has been under review, do you want to remind me?

(2) Thank | Anonymous

I want to know how long the review period of this journal is? Which one has selectd for help?

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Journal Homepage URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/t ... 244&isYear=2010

(0) Thank | Anonymous