I have submitted a paper to an IEEE conference before this. I received a rejection today despite the fact that, both reviewers recommend to accept my paper.
The reason for rejection is not mentioned at all in the email. I try to analyze the reason and from my point of view:
The paper is not out of the conference's scope. If my paper is out of scope, it should be rejected at the first place without sending out to be reviewed.
Both reviewers recommend to accept my paper.
The conference should have not received too many papers. This is because the deadline for submission has just been extended to 10 Nov. In other words, they continue to accept submission of papers at this point.
I was really surprise after I read the following email:
Dear xxx:
Unfortunately, your paper xxx for xxx has not been accepted for publication. We hope that you will find the reviews useful when revising your paper.
The reviews are below or can be found at xxx.
======= Review 1 =======
*** Originality: New or Novel contribution Strong Accept (10)
*** Technical Contribution: Technical/Scientific Contribution, also consider papers that contributes to development of applications. Accept (8)
*** Significance of Topic: Relating to knowledge contribution & conference scope (relevant to Science, Engineering & Technology) Strong Accept (10)
*** Presentation: Clarity and Organisation of Content (Includes Language & Formatting) Accept (8)
*** Recommendation: Overall view and recommendation Strong Accept (10)
*** Detailed comments: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do you consider them important? What are the major reasons to accept or reject the paper? Comment on the degree of novelty, creativity and technical depth in the paper.[Be brief.]
Please provide detailed comments that will be helpful to the TPC for assessing the paper, as well as feedback to the authors.
The paper was reporting an original findings by the authors based on their simulation. xxx. I reckon it is of sufficient quality for the conference.
======= Review 2 =======
*** Originality: New or Novel contribution Accept (8)
*** Technical Contribution: Technical/Scientific Contribution, also consider papers that contributes to development of applications. Accept (8)
*** Significance of Topic: Relating to knowledge contribution & conference scope (relevant to Science, Engineering & Technology) Accept (8)
*** Presentation: Clarity and Organisation of Content (Includes Language & Formatting) Accept (8)
*** Recommendation: Overall view and recommendation Accept (8)
*** Detailed comments: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do you consider them important? What are the major reasons to accept or reject the paper? Comment on the degree of novelty, creativity and technical depth in the paper.[Be brief.]
Please provide detailed comments that will be helpful to the TPC for assessing the paper, as well as feedback to the authors.
Good paper and well written. Easy to understand. xxx.
I replaced some of the reviewers' comments with 'xxx' because it will reveal my unpublished works. Please believe me when I say they are all positive.
Has someone been in this situation before? What is the possible reasons for rejection?