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

6.12 minor revision

6.12 小修订

(0) Thank | 菜头哥

Is there a high probability of this journal being promoted to the second tier?

(0) Thank | undefined

Call for Papers
We are organizing a Special Issue with a fair, fast, and efficient review process, and we are now inviting scholars and students in this field to contribute. If you have a publishing need in the near future, please consider submitting your work. Feel free to consult for submission, and contact me if you are interested.

【? SCI Special Issue Invitation】
? Theme: Advances in Fault Diagnosis, Defect Detection and Predictive Maintenance of Railway Vehicle Systems
? Journal: *Electronics* (SCI indexed, IF: 2.6, JCR Q2)
⏰ Deadline: October 31, 2025

? Highlights of the Special Issue:
- Focus on cutting-edge technologies such as multimodal railway intelligent maintenance, condition monitoring, and track big data analysis
- Fast review process and efficient online publication after acceptance
- Suitable for research in the fields of rail transportation, structural monitoring, and AI applications

Original research/review papers related to the theme are welcome. For more details, please visit the journal's official website: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics/special_issues/0LAD811XOD

(0) Thank | 折城

Excuse me, how much is the layout fee? Is it 2600 francs?

(0) Thank | sddsdssd

5.30主要修订。

(0) Thank | 菜头哥

May I ask if the author's biography requires photos and a paragraph including the information he requested? Thank you.

(0) Thank | 顺利毕业的王同学

The speed is really too fast, never been so fast before. One of my articles was rejected for almost two years, there was no way, I submitted to this journal, received feedback in 19 days, and after revision, it was basically accepted, this is really too fast...

(1) Thank | 畅游世界

It may have set a world record for the speed of the review process...
Submitted on Wednesday, May 14th, and only took 3 working days (Thursday, Friday, and Monday) for the initial review.
Major revisions were done on Tuesday, May 20th, with relatively mild comments from both reviewers, totaling only 7 points, making it easier to revise.
However, considering that a previous journal rejected the resubmission, and it is said that it is best to delay submission until 7-8 days before the 10-day deadline, to appear more serious.
Therefore, the revised manuscript was resubmitted on Monday, May 26th, and minor revisions were completed the next day, May 27th, with one reviewer having no issues and the other having a minor one, which was promptly addressed and submitted on the same day.
The decision was awaited on the evening of May 27th, accepted on May 28th in the morning, and payment was made directly via Alipay.
In total, from submission to acceptance, it only took 5 working days, which is extremely efficient, possibly due to good luck with editors and reviewers being online.
In summary, the advantages are:
1. Fast, very fast
2. Relatively lenient, as my paper in the communication section was accepted, and reviewers were not overly strict.
It is very suitable for first-time authors or those in a hurry to publish results.
Disadvantages:
1. Expensive, with a page fee of 2600 Swiss Francs, at the current exchange rate, I paid 22700 RMB. It is important to confirm whether the research group will cover this cost before submission.
2. Somewhat mediocre in quality, so it remains to be seen if the volume of publications will become more restricted in the future.

(2) Thank | dbl1012

I want to ask if there are no comments on the review, does it mean there are no issues by default?

(0) Thank | tanyaya

Help promote a special issue that a friend is working on, https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors/special_issues/Q0936M2FEV

Wechat, chkai8891

(0) Thank | chenkaicsa

Sorry, it was submitted on 2.27, not 2.26.

(0) Thank | LNS

2.2 Submission
3.19 First review (major revision, minor revision) with a deadline of 10 days
3.25 Revision submission
3.27 Second review (minor revision)
4.1 Accept
(MDPI efficiency is indeed impressive, the review process was very fast, the previous SCI paper took only 5 months)
Wishing everyone successful research and academic achievements!

(0) Thank | LNS

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