2019.11.7 Submission; 2020.1.21 The first review comments returned, requiring major revisions; 2020.4.3 The first revised manuscript was submitted; 2020.6.2 The second review comments returned, requiring major revisions; 2020.6.22 The second revised manuscript was submitted; 2020.7.12 The third review decision returned and it was acceptable after minor revisions; 2020.7.14 The third revised manuscript was submitted; 2020.7.16 It was officially accepted. Thank reviewers and editor Ping Yang. The editorial office responded quickly. Everything was a bit slower during the epidemic and it took 8 months. Three reviewers. One reviewer recommended rejection at the first review stage. Later, he approved the revision and explanation, who provided many professional comments. After the revision at the second review stage, only one reviewer required minor revisions, and the minor revision was officially accepted two days after submission.

(9) Thank | 风风遥感

The top journal in the field of remote sensing. It is all remote sensing people’s dream. There were 4 reviewers in the first review. Fortunately, they all gave positive comments. The editor still required a "major revision" (I heard that as long as one reviewer rejected it, the editor would reject it directly). One month after the revision was submitted, we received some very positive comments from two reviewers: one suggested to publish it directly, and the other suggested a minor revision to be made. The manuscript with minor revision was submitted, and got accepted directly after 2 days! Thanks to Chinese editor Z Zhu——The most responsible editor I have ever met. He handled it very promptly!!!

(16) Thank | lzh_123

The first review lasted for two months, and it was accepted after two rounds of revision. This is the second article of mine within one year. The method is a bit innovative, but I was not hopeful about it. The editor of the preliminary review required a major revision (also considers rejection and resubmission). Following the guidance of reviewers, new highlights in the discussion section were discovered. In the worst period of the COVID epidemic, I lasted for three months in Wuhan. There was an infection upstairs, and the sound of the ambulance outside the window never stopped. The revision was completed in March when the epidemic was gradually brought under control, and the editor accepted it on the same day. Thanks to the editors and reviewers for your patience. Life is precious, truth is lovely, and scientific research is respectable. I wish you all safety, health, and more achievements.

(43) Thank | Brick_mover

It took over half a year to write the manuscript and the review comments were returned two and a half months after the submission. Rejected. It was recommended that I resubmit after modification. After four months of revision, I resubmitted and made a peer-to-peer reply to the review comments. The manuscript will be accepted after 3 weeks, and will be published online within 10 days of acceptance. If your research theme is suitable for the journal and your method shows obvious innovation, you will have a better chance with the editors. My review comments were mainly about technical issues, including language expression, literature review, results validation, and model stability. In order to answer the questions of the reviewers, a large number of experiments had to be added, and the structure, charts, etc. of the articles underwent major adjustments. If you have time, energy, and good research results, you can be accepted too!

(7) Thank | Anonymous

2025.06.05 Submitted to the journal
2025.06.06 With editor
2025.06.13 Reviewer invited
2025.06.14 Under review

(0) Thank | QAQ

2024.10.26 Submitted with editor
2024.11.17 Under review
2024.12.08 Major revision (60 days) 
(Extension requested for over a month)
2025.03.11 Resubmitted for revision with editor
2025.03.18 Under review
2025.04.07 Review completed/ decision in process
2025.04.12 Minor revision (14 days)
2025.04.16 Resubmitted for revision with editor
2025.05.06 Under review
2025.05.18 Required reviews completed
2025.05.27 Decision in process
2025.05.28 Accepted

(0) Thank | CoolChen

20250318 Submit
20250326 UR
20250415 RRC (2 review comments)
20250505 DIP (4 review comments)
20250512 Reject & Resubmit

Overall the process is going well, but there is a significant difference in the reviewers' opinions, with one rejecting and the other three suggesting minor revisions. The reviewers are very responsible and provide valuable feedback. In the end, the editor mentioned that there were too many areas that needed to be changed and therefore rejected the submission but encouraged resubmission. I will make the necessary revisions and hopefully be accepted smoothly next time!

(0) Thank | Trifurs

Submitted in August 2023
Underwent 4 rounds of major revisions
Accepted in May 2025
The reviewers all provided very helpful suggestions!

(0) Thank | letpub_cl

The sixth submission was successful, with only two out of the previous five submissions being sent for review. It is a very difficult journal to get published in. The feedback from the reviewers was very professional, and the revisions greatly improved the quality of the article. It is a great honor to have an article published in IEEE GRSM, which is the highest-impact journal in the field of remote sensing.

(0) Thank | tree9999

Is the editing teacher still on vacation recently?

(0) Thank | 从入门到放弃

10.26 Submission to Editor
11.15 Reviewer invited

(0) Thank | CoolChen

October 18th, All Reviews Completed.

(0) Thank | kkkkkyyyyy

September 5
September 9 under review
September 15 reviewer invited
September 23 under review

(0) Thank | kkkkkyyyyy

After submitting with the editor, if the status shows "decision in progress", does it mean the submission will be rejected?

(0) Thank | ecnulc

Can I continue to submit after the rejection of the editor?

(0) Thank | paper_king

Is it a explicit requirement of the journal that it cannot exceed 15%? I think the general requirement is usually below 20%.

(0) Thank | paper_king

Can I see the status "reviewer invited" in the submission status column?

(0) Thank | paper_king

Did you see the status of your reviewer invitation on the submission page?

(0) Thank | paper_king

Can you see the status of "invited" for your reviewer(s) on the submission page?

(0) Thank | paper_king

I submitted it in early July and it took half a month for the editor to review it, so just be patient.

(0) Thank | naivechildghc

May I ask how long it took for the change to occur later on?

(0) Thank | 八戒朱

This is really efficient.

(0) Thank | 八戒朱

It's been over half a month already, still "with editor", not sure if it will take a long time or just be rejected directly.

(0) Thank | 八戒朱

As one of the top journals in the field of remote sensing, RSE's reputation and article quality in recent years are widely recognized. After researching the topic for four to five years, despite being rejected two years ago, the editor-in-chief Marie Weiss provided constructive feedback and direction. After two years of effort, the submission was finally accepted by the editors and reviewers. Best wishes for the continued success of the journal!

There were a total of three reviewers, three rounds of revisions, with major revisions in the first two rounds and acceptance in the final round. Each round of review took 2-3 months, with the same amount of time given for revisions. The editor-in-chief and associate editors responded quickly after each submission, with changes typically made within a week. All three reviewers and the associate editors were professional and emphasized the innovation and rigor of the work. If these criteria were met, they would provide feedback to help improve the quality of the article in other aspects.

(1) Thank | 白羊屁孩儿

I apologize for my emotions and my youthful ignorance. I used to think that ideas and creativity were the core of a paper, but RSE has shown me that making it understandable to more people and conducting more detailed investigations and evidence are the true core of an article!

(0) Thank | Wcai