IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION

Antenna article, three reviewers, first review was three and a half months, all reviewers agree to accept.

(5) Thank | 司空菲离

The review speed was nearly two months, submitted in early April 2017, and received notice of revision in mid-May. Overhaul, many opinions were very pertinent, and the review request was continuously improved.It took more than two months to revamp, make up the experiment, and do the calculation.In August, the revised draft was submitted, and in September, the revised notice was received, minor repair.It took half a month to revise the submission, and in October, I received a modification notice to polish the English.Submitted in mid-November and received in a few days.Online in December, officially released in January 2018.The review requirements are very high, which is very helpful for the improvement of the quality of the paper.

(4) Thank | jszhao@shmtu.edu.cn

Now it’s stricter than the previous review, and the requirement is getting higher.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

, the first time I encountered such a review and rejected the manuscript, the request was still very high. I have a paper that has undergone 2 major repairs, 3 minor repairs, and finally accepted, which took 1 year.Half, the comments made by Xiao Xiu are that the English expression of this article is not good. Every time there is a so-called TRACK EDITOR, let me modify the English expression in the article.

(1) Thank | jwmathphy@163.com

Very good journal, now the review cycle is accelerated, focusing on theoretical analysis and innovation, simple simulation and debugging is not easy!

(3) Thank | Anonymous

I feel that this journal is very authoritative when I first started doing the antenna. Now it’s definitely okay.There are too many waters to be filled, and there will be seven or eight articles in three years, because I am not an example in this field.Of course, I also administer myself, but I still have a conscience, at least not against academic ethics.

(55) Thank | Anonymous

I think this journal is very authoritative when I first started making antennas. Now it’s definitely okay.There are too many waters to be filled, and there will be seven or eight articles in three years, because I am not an example in this field.Of course, I also administer myself, but I still have a conscience, at least not against academic ethics.

(27) Thank | Anonymous

I think this journal is very authoritative when I first started doing the antenna. Now it’s definitely okay.There are too many waters to be filled, and there will be seven or eight articles in three years, because I am not an example in this field.Of course, I also administer myself, but I still have a conscience, at least not against academic ethics.

(7) Thank | Anonymous

big change smallRe-recorded.One of the reviewers is quite responsible.

(1) Thank | enzo

3 At the end of the month, I received a revised opinion until June.Overhaul: A total of two reviewers, only one format question was raised in the first instance, and eight revision opinions were written in the second instance. Some of the amendments also included many independent opinions.Seriously revised one by one, submitted a revised draft after one and a half months, and wrote a full 13 pages of words.Until the mid-September received the revised comments, the reviewers had no comments, and the editors made the revision of the grammar.So I revised the grammar and submitted it, and I received it in October.In general, reviewers have a thorough analysis of the article and should be in one direction.The impact of this journal in the plasma is fairly good and is often applied.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

My situation is three reviewers, two of whom are very pertinent, and the comments are in place, and the recommendations are highly improved.However, the other reviewer was completely unreliable, and he did not give the review comments for four months. Finally, the editor urged him to reluctantly give a review comment.At the time of the second instance, I didn’t even give advice...However, as the most influential journal in the field of antenna and communication, I still try to select for the

(0) Thank | Anonymous

12Submission in June, September overhaul, submitted in February, February, May, minor repair, July, and then submitted in September.Almost this cycle

(1) Thank | Anonymous

The world's top journal in the field of antennas.The speed of review is completely based on luck.My first submitment was in April, April, and I was overhauled in September. I submitted a revised draft in December, a minor repair in February, and a accept in June.The second submitment was in September, September, and was overhauled in November. The revised draft was submitted in December and was accepted in January of 2013.Some reviewers are dragging, and there is no way. Sometimes the editor or editor can drag on for a long time. I don't know if they will go on vacation.Recently, I feel that there are some differences in the level of people. Some are very professional and very serious. Some of them are just two sentences, but the editors and editors will check them out.Because the journal is divided into long texts and short essays, some articles will be transferred if they are not very good.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

First trial + modification + second trial has spent more than a year.The first trial was 3-4 months, and the major revision was given.A reviewer gave a minor repair, a major repair or rejection.The second trial took more than five months.Finally, the article content was rejected because it did not conform to the scope of the journal.The content of the article is in communication theory. Although it is in contact with the antenna, it is indeed the mainstream of non-TAP.

(1) Thank | Anonymous

Do you know that the chances of this journal being accepted in the second instance are high??

(0) Thank | Anonymous

The journal is a Top Journal, JCR2 District, 2012IF is 2.151. The journal is a top authoritative journal. Many classic literatures and famous scholars have contributed on it. The quality of the manuscript is very high!

(0) Thank | Anonymous

As mentioned above: the world's top journals in the field of antenna and radio wave propagation.The reviewers are very professional and ask a lot of questions. Of course, it is also possible for a professional reviewer to not fully understand the author's work (especially the details).Individual deputy editors who like to find references are reviewers, so you can pay attention to this submission.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Journal Homepage URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=8

(0) Thank | Anonymous

selectd once and was rejected.However, the reviewer (one) is very serious, and I am convinced by the comments!

(0) Thank | Anonymous

The world's top journal in the field of antenna and radio wave propagation.The circle is not big, so the reviewers are very professional, and it is difficult to get through the draft.Generally, there are two reviewers, but there are many questions raised. It is not mandatory to have experimental verification. However, if there is no experiment, it will be more difficult to accept. It takes a lot of effort to rectify the results like the reviewer.Sex.

(0) Thank | Anonymous