Hello, can I ask if this journal does not accept submissions longer than 8 pages?

(0) 讚！ | 爱学习的宝宝兔崽儿呢

The algorithm results are very good, but relatively simple. Many experiments were conducted, so the comments made by the reviewers are not too sharp, mainly targeting the introduction part (I did not investigate the reasons for the problem in depth). Additionally, they requested experiments on other datasets.

2024.02.6 received
2024.03.27 revise and resubmit
2024.04.25 resubmit
2024.05.27 accepted

It feels like RAL is the best alternative to conferences (our institute only allows journal publications

(0) 讚！ | qiao123aaa

The two papers submitted at the end of last year were both accepted after about five months.
Paper 1:
2023.12.25 Received
2024.01.15 Under review
2024.02.25 Decision pending
2024.02.26 Revise and resubmit
2024.03.24 Resubmit
2024.04.22 Decision pending
2024.05.13 Accepted
Paper 2:
2023.12.28 Received
2024.12.28 Under review
2024.02.26 Decision pending
2024.03.08 Revise and resubmit
2024.04.07 Resubmit
2024.05.25 Accepted

(1) 讚！ | 我，YZ

Update the final result, the editor-in-chief and the deputy editor discussed it and felt that it would take too long to find another reviewer, so they decided to discuss this layer and make the final decision. They said they wouldn't change the reviewers. Although the article has indeed improved the argument on key issues based on the comments, one of the reviewers still raised this key issue in the final decision, resulting in a rejection.

Reviewer 1: Minor revisions (add analysis of time complexity); Major revisions (further refine the argument on key issues); Reject (said key issues were not considered).

Reviewer 2: Major revisions (increase argument on key issues, revise introduction and summary); Absent; Minor revisions (revise summary, title).

Reviewer 3: Minor revisions; Accept; Absent.

The editor-in-chief said there were no new reviewers, so it can be inferred that the review situation should be as above, and Reviewer 1 was stuck. However, it seems quite strange, not at all like the same person. The revisions for Reviewer 2 were completed according to his detailed analysis suggestions point by point, Reviewer 3 said I did not consider this issue. And the perspective on time complexity analysis was also different from when Reviewer 2 reviewed it, so I disagreed with Reviewer 2. Finally, Reviewer 1 said there were serious negligence and errors leading to rejection, which left everyone confused.

Bad Ending: Three reviews over eight months resulted in rejection

(0) 讚！ | oceancat

5.23 Revise and resubmit 四个审稿意见

(0) 讚！ | 追梦的读书人

Decision pending

(0) 讚！ | 追梦的读书人

The editor-in-chief replied to the appeal a week later and decided to add 1-2 more reviewers to continue the review process, which is quite good

(0) 讚！ | oceancat

This journal can only be revised once according to the process. If there are still many reviewers asking for revisions in the second round, it will be rejected. At that time, as an AE, I rejected it because the review period had to be limited to within 6 months, so there was no time allowed for revisions, and encouraged to resubmit after making improvements. However, the new reviewer rejected it without carefully reviewing the revised version. 

It has been a week and there has been no response to the appeal. It seems that this journal has encountered malicious reviewers and can only be considered unlucky

(0) 讚！ | oceancat

Are all the opinions rejected with a more positive flavor, and it feels a bit unfair to ask for more submissions?

(0) 讚！ | nukoah

Sharing my sad submission experience
2023.10 submitted
2024.12 revise and resubmit (Three reviewers all think the innovation is strong, need more experimental evidence and revise the literature review)
2024.1 revised and resubmitted
2024.2 reject (One acceptance, one thinks it's good but needs more experiments. The handling editor thinks everyone's suggestions are good, the paper has potential, encourages to revise and resubmit)
2024.3 revised and resubmitted
2024.5 reject (It seems like all previous reviewers disappeared, new reviewers suggest minor revisions for acceptance, one didn't even finish reading the abstract, just rejecting based on subjective imagination, most of the points he mentioned were already explained in detail in the manuscript, he just didn't read)
A 7.5-month peer review experience for a non-mainstream direction in my master's laboratory, the time cost is too high, the timing is awkward, hope it won't affect my further studies. Currently attempting an appeal, will provide updates if any

(0) 讚！ | oceancat

January 30, 2024, submit
January 31, 2024, under review
March 15, 2024, revise and resubmit
April 13, 2024, submit
May 6, 2024, accepted

The first job of the master's degree, the review comments greatly help to improve the quality of the paper (3 reviewers are positive, and 1 questions more, requiring an additional physical experiment). I hope the journal will get better and better

(0) 讚！ | xujieqin

The first review result will be out in about 2 months, with a total of 3 reviewers. Reviewers 1 and 2 both thought the paper was well written, but they raised many very professional questions and opinions, which were quite challenging, but ultimately manageable. I agreed with most of their suggestions. However, reviewer 3 had a completely different opinion, saying the paper was incomprehensible. Judging from their comments, reviewer 3 is likely not an expert in the field. Due to reviewer 3's harsh criticism, the editor rejected the paper and emphasized the need for significant language revisions

(0) 讚！ | 今天吃什么

5.13 decision pending

(0) 讚！ | wyyaa123

Congratulations, but RAL only reviews once, which I think is already good compared to several rounds in IEEE Trans before accepting

(0) 讚！ | #Oasis#

Manuscript received: January 24, 2024;
Revised: April 5, 2024;
Accepted: May 7, 2024

(0) 讚！ | ULong2

December 7, 2023 Received
December 9, 2023 Under review
March 24, 2024 Revise and resubmit
April 21, 2024 Resubmit
May 6, 2024 Accepted
I waited for three and a half months in the first round, and at one point considered withdrawing the submission. Eventually, I sent an email to urge a decision, and received a response two weeks later. Both reviewers had generally positive feedback but requested additional experiments. The Associate Editor (ae) was appreciative. It took me a month to conduct the extra experiments and create a new video. After resubmission, both reviewers and the ae were satisfied and the paper was accepted directly. Overall, the process went smoothly, but the initial waiting time was relatively long, possibly due to the niche topic of the study

(0) 讚！ | 理由同学

3.28 submit
4.4 under review

(0) 讚！ | wyyaa123

How are the results now? Can the control theory and simulation applied to robots be submitted to this journal?

(0) 讚！ | xingkonghmn

How are the results now, the control theory is done, but can the simulation be applied to robots in this journal?

(0) 讚！ | xingkonghmn

First time submitting, hopefully it will have a good outcome

(0) 讚！ | 小然同学的科研进阶之路

2024 4.27 submit
2024 4.28 under review

(0) 讚！ | 梅里离

This journal is really slow

(0) 讚！ | liqiang

Do papers in the field of visual direction require real machine experiments?

(0) 讚！ | liqiang

The makeup experiment was not allowed due to lack of process diagram explanation, insufficient experimental detail description, small font size and legend in the pictures, making it impossible to see clearly in the printed version. It feels like it was rejected just because it was edited by Chinese

(0) 讚！ | universesummer

Could I ask for the reasons why the manuscript was rejected? Was it due to lack of novelty or insufficient experimental evidence?

(0) 讚！ | nputud