I just received a decision letter from IEEE ACCESS with resubmission option(first decision came in one month). The recommendation of reviewer1 is "Accept (minor edits)" and the recommendation of reviewer2 is "Reject (update and resubmit encouraged)".

Reviewer 1: Accept (minor edits) compare the performance of proposed method with conventional methods are given in ref[] & ref[].

Reviewer 2: Reject (update & resubmission encouraged) Comments came like grammar check and typo corrections are needs to be done... some notations, abbreviations are need to be corrected... Add expression for proposed technique and also explanation with performance cure...

I am doing revision on my manuscript as per advice given by the journal reviewers and going to submit ASAP....

If anybody has the similar kind of experience, please share what could be the final decision?.... Valid points are welcome & appreciated....

  • 2
    The final decision depends on the quality of your revision... – Solar Mike Jul 10 '19 at 8:36
  • If you have already decided what to do, why are you asking a question? – Anonymous Physicist Jul 10 '19 at 11:15
  • Carefully check your grammar. The fact that the two refs decision are different it is just because of the bulleted choices offered by the journals. I would be very optimistic. – Alchimista Jul 10 '19 at 11:22

There is no real way of knowing what the outcome will be without seeing the feedback. It honestly depends on the primary reviewer. Depending on what the formal process is for IEEE ACCESS, either one reviewer will have the ultimate say, or both reviewers will have to agree on a result.

I've been in this situation a few times and it has gone both ways. Looking at your feedback summary, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the research which is always a good sign (I've had more than my fair share of reviewers simply disliking the premise of my research which is a complete non-starter). Ultimately, you need to work hard on the revision and write a cover letter that addresses each of their points.

The cover letter is a really important part of this process as a lot of reviewers will use this as the basis for their decision. Be sure to respond to each of their comments methodically, and clearly. Try to avoid using vague language such as "We've added more detail to the conclusion", but instead provide a clear description of the changes you made.

It sounds like reviewer two had an issue with the language used. If you've got any strong English language researchers in your department, it's worth asking if they are able to proofread the document for you. Services like Grammarly are also useful to improve typos and grammar. Make sure you emphasise how much effort you put into improving this when responding to reviewer two's comments. This may be enough to nudge the needle in your favour.

| improve this answer | |

I'm assuming that on top of the two reviewers also an (associate) editor had a hand on this, because this is how I know things, although I don't know IEEE ACCESS.

In that case, if you address all the listed issues appropriately, you should normally be fine. If the paper is not rejected initially, the editor should make sure that you get all information required to produce an acceptable resubmission. Otherwise it would be pointless to ask for a resubmission.

That said, there is no guarantee because 1) the editor may not have paid attention but may have a deeper look in the second go (not good behaviour but it happens) or 2) after the amendments you make, reviewers/the editor may discover other issues that they hadn't spotted before because they had missed something, maybe because of bad writing.

Another thing I don't know about IEEE ACCESS is whether reviewers have the option to pick something between "Accept (minor edits)" and "Reject (update and resubmit encouraged)". If they don't, the situation is better for you because Reviewer 2 may just have expressed that some proper work needs to be done, despite being generally positive. If there is a "Major Revision" option on the other hand, the current choice of Reviewer 2 is more negative. There exist journals in which "Major Revision" is an option and others that don't offer this.

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.