I'm still short of one paper before graduation, and it was submitted as it is very quick in this journal. 10.19 Submitted; 10.20 personal information supplemented 11.03 Major revision required. There were 3 reviewers, 1 accepted it, 1 required a major revision, and 1 required a minor revision; Honestly speaking, the level of reviewers in this journal was really uneven, and many comments were really not flattering, and I even wondered if some of them just read the abstract; 11.11 Major revision was resubmitted, a notice was received on the same day, requiring another minor revision, and a reviewer made some other comments; 11.13 The minor revision was resubmitted; 11.13 Pending editor decision; 11.16 Accepted. We paid the fee on the same day; 11.17 Received a free language editing, several grammar issues and improper expressions were revised, then proofreading, and subsequently it got published. However, the overall submission experience of this journal is really bad. There are a few points to complain about: 1. Countless emails will be sent to you no matter you submit a manuscript, submit a revision, it gets accepted, or it gets published, and most of them are spams, which is annoying to check; 2. At the time it got accepted, I received an email asking me to pay within 5 minutes, and AE urged it again that night. Are you collecting debt? 3. Why are you collecting the author’s CV? Do you collect the user information and then conduct precision marketing? The overall feeling is that money is really everything, isn't it? Is there any other journal these days that it only took less than a month from submission to publication?

(36) Thank | yichen009

The manuscript was submitted on August 11, and it was under review the next day, because the research direction is relatively suitable for this journal. On August 13, the assistant editor requested some additional information for the author’s statement. After long time of under review, the status finally changed to major revisions on September 13. I received the email from assistant editor and was required to return the revised manuscript in 10 days. I was revising diligently; and it was about the 7th day, I was urged by the assistant editor. The revised manuscript was submitted on September 21. Unexpectedly, there were 4 reviewers for my article. The 2nd reviewer had no comments and accepted it directly; The 3rd reviewer required minor revision; The 1st and 4th reviewers required major revisions. The 4th reviewers said that the innovation of the article was not enough, and experiments and some other contents needed to be supplemented. It is worth mentioning that the comments of the reviewers were relatively good. The cover letter returned to the editor was 16 pages in total, and no experiments were added. On the evening of September 22, when I browsed the website, I occasionally found that the status changed to minor revision. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd reviewers accepted it; The 4th reviewer raised some questions again and forced me to add experiments. The assistant editor informed minor revision on September 24, and required me to submit the revised manuscript in 3 days. The minor revised manuscript was submitted at 6 o'clock on September 24, along with a 7-page cover letter. After that, I refreshed the web page at regular intervals. Fortunately, the status keeps changing, and finally, the status changed to paper accepted at 9 o’clock. I wish all your articles will be accepted as soon as possible.

(7) Thank | Lnnnn楠

2020/7/13 submit; 2020/7/14 assistant editor assigned; 2020/8/4 Revisions in Advance; 2020/8/17 major revisions; 2020/8/17 manuscript resubmitted; 2020/8/24 pending editor decision; 2020/8/25 accept. My review cycle should be very long. The paper was 32 pages long. It was in the robot navigation direction, with a long length. There were 4 reviewers, and the editor emailed to us on August 4, notifying us to revise the paper in advance based on the comments of the two reviewers, and wait for the other two reviewers’ comments. All three reviewers had quite good opinions and affirmed the work. One reviewer questioned the innovation, and this was refuted. The most hateful thing was that a reviewer asked me to cite 6 references. I read them and no one that was relevant to me, so I reluctantly cited two. In general, the process in Sensors is very formal, the reviewers are average, and the efficiency is quite high. The editor responds to emails within two hours and does not seem to work on weekends. I also published an article in IEEE Sensors J. There were only two reviewers, but they were more professional. Haha, with two papers in Q3 journals and being postponed for half a year, I finally graduated and got my doctoral degree.

(12) Thank | cgdsss

My situation was like this: Received date: 4 July 2019; Revised date: 24 August 2019; Accepted date: 26 August 2019; Published date: 28 August 2019. There was a rejection and resubmission was encouraged. All the comments of three reviewers were not simple. I revised it for a month and submitted it. Two of the reviewers were basically satisfied, and it didn't know whether the third review was still not satisfied or did not return the comments in time, In short, the editor added one more reviewer. As a result, it took one month and a half to get the result. It usually doesn’t take so long. The new reviewer said it was basically OK. The editor advised to make minor revision, and 5 days was given. It was accepted after the submission of revised manuscript. Let's say something about it. The submission experience was like a roller coaster ride. At the beginning, I though what I wrote was not bad, but unexpectedly, the reviewers raised a lot of comments that I didn’t expect. I was still worried about it even though I tried my best to revise it. But unexpectedly, it turned out to be minor revision, and it was accepted directly after revision was resubmitted. All the other aspects were good. Review and the process of other things were very fast, and the editor responded very promptly. My level was average, and I was relatively anxious, so I chose this journal. The comments of reviewers were still very helpful, and I feel that it is indeed much better than before. Well, thanks to the editors and reviewers. What’s more, MDPI has its own English editing service, which can be used if the article is considered by the reviewers to be unnatural.

(0) Thank | 小玛过河

Submission on Feb. 24th; Major revision required on Mar. 16th. The two reviewers’ opinions were very professional. They asked a dozen questions, and the opinions were quite pertinent, requiring a frame adjustment of the paper. I spent nearly 10 days revising it and returned it for review. Revised submission on Mar. 25th. The second round of review comments received on Apr. 1st, requiring minor revisions. The reviewers were very satisfied with the revisions. They were very careful and even pointed out a wrongly spelt word. I revised and sent it back that day. Author's declaration, signatures, and biographies submitted on Apr. 2nd. Then it was accepted on Apr. 5th. Then paid 1,800 francs for proofreading on Apr. 5th-8th. The whole process is like this. It was really exhausting, and I even felt that my weight has dropped a bit. I think Sensors is really good, not only the service, but also the quality of the papers. I was planning to submit to MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND SIGNAL PROCESSING (IF 4.3 Q1), but the review period is too long and it’s hard to wait. So, I firstly submit to Sensors as a guarantee, mainly because of its efficiency. I wonder if those people who belittled Sensors all the time are mentally problematic. They must have been knocked by rejections. If they don’t approve it, why do they submit? Sensors doesn’t beg you. If you have the ability, you can of course publish on Q1. That’s terrific. To be honest, there’re unqualified papers in every journal. Is there no unqualified paper in the top journal in mainland China? Never to mention the acceptance that only due to the qualifications of authors. Let's just spend our time on improving the paper. This is just my personal sharing!

(48) Thank | 海阔天空520

SCIE Journal. Some people say that the journal is slow. I just want to use my own paper as an example to other contributors. I have submitted in Sensors before and the speed is very fast. I have experienced the following process: review (20 days), overhaul (20 days), minor repairs, overhaul, minor repairs again, then  overhaul, refusal, and encourage to resubmit. Reviewers finally gave "the decision to the editor", the editor was afraid of offending the reviewer and gave the rejection. My feeling: The efficiency of editing is very high, and the reviewers are very serious, but not every reviewer is easy to deal with and editing decisions basically depend on the reviewer's opinion.

(16) Thank | abc

Hello, senior expert, I would like to consult with you as a research novice. The editorial department has sent a PDF attachment, which requires filling out a series of contents including Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. I would like to ask you, how did you fill out this attachment at that time?

(0) Thank | exna梦

Hello, senior expert, I am a research novice and would like to ask for your advice. I have just submitted my paper for publication, and the editorial office has sent me a PDF attachment requesting me to fill in the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and other related content. I would like to ask you, how did you fill out this attachment when you submitted your paper? I would greatly appreciate your help.

(0) Thank | exna梦

Hello everyone, a beginner in research would like to consult with you experts. I have just submitted my paper for publication, and the editorial department has sent a PDF attachment, which requires filling out a series of information including Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. I would appreciate it if you could give me some guidance on how to fill this out.

(0) Thank | exna梦

It's very strange. The process is relatively fast, but very annoying. In the first round, there were originally three reviewers who gave me ten days to revise. After I finished revising and submitted it, another reviewer was added to the system. The first three reviewers gave very positive reviews, but the fourth one gave a super negative one, with 6/3/10/16 comments respectively. In the second round, two reviewers approved it, and the one with the fewest comments did not reply in the second round. The one with the most comments came up with 26 more, but the issues were too abstract to address, for example: What can your work bring to farmers who have not achieved mechanization? After submitting the revised manuscript, it went into editorial decision and eventually I was rejected for resubmission. It was a successful waste of a month. I really don't understand this abstract journal.

(0) Thank | bywwhite1

From submission to acceptance, it only took 27 days, incredibly fast.

(0) Thank | #00FFFF

25.2.21pr
25.2.28ur
25.4.3 Receive reviewer comments (first round), both reviewers suggest minor revisions
25.4.11 Resubmit
25.4.14 Only one reviewer provided comments (second round, no issues, agreed to publish), then entered ped
25.4.21 Accepted
Overall, it's okay but slower than expected. It took over a month for the first round of reviews to come back, while classmates submitting to mdpi typically received feedback within 17 days. Just glad it got accepted.

(0) Thank | geats

It's been 9 days for me, still in PR status, not sure if I will be rejected.

(0) Thank | zcyneu

Bro, how long has your pending review been? Mine has been pending for 10 days already, is it going to be rejected?

(0) Thank | zcyneu

I would like to ask how long has it been since you submitted to the ped? After the first revision on April 11th, the second round came back on April 14th with one reviewer but no comments. Since then, it has been in ped until the 19th.

(0) Thank | geats

3.8 submission
4.8 publication

(0) Thank | cliff

Under Review-4.1

(0) Thank | 菜头哥

11.06 submission;
11.07 assigned to editor;
12.03 received revision comments;
12.10 returned revised manuscript;
12.11 received one acceptance, one reviewer's comment for revision;
12.12 manuscript returned, status changed to pending editorial decision (PED);
12.16 received acceptance

Considering whether to submit another article, the experience has been good so far.

(0) Thank | 路过的

Which direction can we avoid a minefield by saying?

(0) Thank | 好运常来

How about now? Do we have any results yet?

(0) Thank | 好运常来

1.20 Submission
2.15 Major revision
2.20 Resubmission
2.23 Minor revision
2.24 Resubmission
2.25 Accepted
2.26 APC
2.27 Final Version
2.28 Online

It took almost a month from submission to major revision, with the Chinese New Year in between, not sure if it had any impact. Overall, it went smoothly and it took about a month to get accepted.

(0) Thank | Qian

Received manuscript (pr stage) on December 4, 2024
Author confirmation + author biography + resubmission on December 10, 2024 (It seems that the resubmission refreshed their acceptance speed, otherwise seven days is too slow) (ur stage)
…
Confirmation of article processing fee on January 3, 2025 (this confirmation is inexplicable, waited almost a month for this news? Very anxious ◎_◎;)
Major revision on January 29, 2025 (received a major revision at five o'clock on the first day of the Chinese New Year -_- still need to go through mdpi, three reviewers, requested to complete within ten days, all are superficial revision comments)
Returned manuscript on February 6, 2025
…
…
February 26, 2025 (out of the three reviewers in the system, only one had a second round of comments, and this comment was also an acceptance for publication. The editor gave a small comment and returned it on the same day. P.S. Remember this editor)
March 6, 2025 (I couldn't stand it anymore, saw others receiving acceptance for their articles within two days at the final revision stage, mine has been silent for a week, so I sent an email to follow up)
March 7, 2025 (Another editor replied saying the editor who was handling my article had left ? and I need to wait patiently for a new editor to handle it)
March 10, 2025 (Accepted for publication)

(0) Thank | ponkan76

3.6pr

3.7ur

(0) Thank | 南京航空学院

Please do not use QQ email. This is my first time submitting to MDPI, and I don't understand it. I had to make changes back and forth twice.

(0) Thank | lucky

Academician, what stage are you at now? I have been PED for more than 10 days.

(0) Thank | LXY必中