It is a top journal of aviation and aerospace guidance and control; the editor-in-chief Ping Lu is very responsible. Basically 5 weekdays after the submission, the manuscript will be transferred to associate editor or rejected directly. The rejection rate is very high, and it emphasizes the application value of the method proposed in the article.

(30) Thank | Evan

Reply to floors 9, 12, 16 and 19. It is an automated journal like IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control and Automatica, it mainly focuses on theoretical algorithms. Generally, the research results of such journals are completely unusable in real life, and therefore cannot be applied in the professional field of aerospace. For example, if you analyze time delay and finite convergence casually, you can easily have an article published on Automatica, but it is absolutely difficult to be published on Journal of Construction in Developing Countries. What’s more, many of the journals you mentioned focus on relationship. Therefore, I generally check the content of the articles if I see small articles published on journals like IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control when I review grant proposals. So, being published on top journals is not necessarily a bonus item.

(13) Thank | amen2100

Although the impact factor is not very high, it is recognized TOP 2 in the aerospace field. Especially in the field of spacecraft state estimation, it is no doubt No.1.

(33) Thank | amen2100

Among good journals in the control field, JGCD is not in the top ten.

(5) Thank | Nali

Yes, it is a direct hire and there is no requirement for a second round of revisions.

(0) Thank | GuidCon

It has been 4 and a half months now and still no news. Have you returned to minor repairs after the major repairs on your end, or have you been directly hired?

(0) Thank | LQXnuaa123

Typically, major revisions make decisions quickly, usually within a month and without new reviewers. The chances of major revisions being accepted are still quite high, but I am not sure if the speed of the associate editor's processing plays a factor.

(0) Thank | GuidCon

After submitting the revised manuscript, how many months does it usually take to receive a decision? It has been over three months and there has been no response. Should I consider reaching out to other reviewers? Is there a higher chance of acceptance after a major revision?

(0) Thank | LQXnuaa123

After receiving the feedback on major revisions, it usually takes a few months to get the results. It has been over 3 months and there has been no news yet. Should we look for other reviewers? Is the chance of acceptance higher after major revisions?

(0) Thank | LQXnuaa123

After submitting the revised manuscript, it generally takes a few months to receive the decision. It has been over 3 months and there has been no response yet. Should I look for other reviewers? Is the chance of acceptance higher after revising the manuscript?

(1) Thank | LQXnuaa123

The other three are all younger brothers in front of JGCD, the youngest among them.

(2) Thank | 面面

How should JGCD, TAES, AST, and CJA choose funds/hats/selections in the field of aerospace control?

(0) Thank | 小白菜111

Borrowing a comment from a senior in the TSP community, I personally believe that the value of academic achievements depends on whether they have significance: there are roughly four measures of the value of a paper, soundness, novelty, significance, and presentation. Soundness refers to the completeness and correctness of the technology (the absence of technical errors and defects is a prerequisite), novelty refers to whether the technical method is new or not (whether it is existing; existing technical processing methods that can be found in the literature are definitely not very effective), and significance refers to how much practical value it has ("Okay, I admit what you said is all correct, but tell me, what's the use of your method?"). Therefore, the innovation of stacking buffs is not called innovation (at most it is called sound). Having many formulas, over a hundred, is also not considered innovation (at most it is called sound). It may be sound and novel, but if it does not provide guidance value to the field, it lacks significance.

(0) Thank | GuidCon

Especially in recent years, there have been very few control-related articles, mainly because the field of control has been flooded with poorly-written papers that are filled with incomprehensible proofs, pretending to showcase theoretical depth but are actually academic garbage. The core criteria of this journal are: 1) originality of ideas, and 2) practical and significant technological innovations. If you are just piecing together theories for simulation without any practical application, you might as well not bother submitting your work here.

(0) Thank | 面面

Undoubtedly a top journal in the field, highly recognized in the aerospace industry, there is no one like it.

The entire acceptance process was neither fast nor slow. The paper was submitted in early February, the first round of comments was received in mid to late May, revisions were made in early June, and acceptance came in early July.

The editors were very meticulous and responsible. There were over 60 combined comments from the DE and AE, and the reviewers' comments were very professional, making you feel like, "Wow, I really didn't notice this detail before," which was very helpful in finalizing the paper.

(7) Thank | 面面

Constructive criticism, incremental innovation, and patchwork monsters are better avoided. Don't embarrass yourself by submitting to this journal

(0) Thank | 小年哥哥

Is there a difference between uppercase and lowercase when writing "under review"?

(0) Thank | 金色年华

What is the difference between "Under Review" and "under review"?

(0) Thank | 金色年华

Hello, may I ask why it has been about a week since I submitted my article, and the system shows "under review", but the Associate Editor is still "Not Assigned"?

(1) Thank | Kafka_

Who should I send the reminder to? I don't have the AE's email. The contact email sent when submitting the manuscript is the AIAA Publisher's email. It has been 12 months without a result after review, and no one replied to two reminders

(0) Thank | 对景难排

The huge problem caused by this is that many control-related articles, and corresponding stability proofs, are incorrect. Not to mention the novelty of your article, it's all nonsense. Basic stability cannot be guaranteed, let alone innovation

(0) Thank | cillian

Hello, I would like to ask, how do you define "good ideas," incremental innovation, and integration innovation? Could you provide an example?

(0) Thank | 星踪

The entire hiring process took less than 6 months and went quite smoothly.
7.22 submitted
7.25 under review
12.12 minor revisions
12.31 major revisions
1.11 accepted

The editor-in-chief, AE, and 2 reviewers were involved in the process. The editor-in-chief requested a shorter title, the feedback from the 2 reviewers was very positive, and the AE raised several issues related to expressions. The first revision was given 30 days.

Personally, I feel that for this journal, the editor-in-chief will read your article thoroughly from beginning to end, and there is a 1/3 chance of passing the review once the editor-in-chief sends it for review. If the editor-in-chief and AE are interested in your article, the chances are significantly higher.

This journal does not have strict requirements on the depth of algorithm theory. However, there is a strong need for innovation in proposing new problems and solutions, usually in a relatively new scenario. Therefore, articles in JGCD are quite inspiring in the industry, they are understandable and interesting.

Simply combining existing methods and incremental innovations are usually rejected here, writing lengthy proofs may not be very useful.

So, JGCD is particularly suitable for articles with new ideas, so don't hesitate to submit your work

(9) Thank | Zerob

Which AE is specifically not good to disclose, anyway he is the technical fellow of NASA, I feel they are not familiar with the academic circle, they can't find a reviewer in half a year. Urged twice without reply, finally rejected directly. Shouldn't cover letter specify AE, it may also be because the research group is not familiar with this operation

(0) Thank | zjuwk

Which AE is this, can we specify an AE for the cover letter?

(0) Thank | asdfg12123