NEUROCOMPUTING
Note: The following journal information is for reference only. Please check the journal website for updated information prior to submission.
Journal Title
NEUROCOMPUTING
NEUROCOMPUTING
ISSN / eISSN
0925-2312 / 1872-8286
Aims and Scope
Neurocomputing publishes articles describing recent fundamental contributions in the field of neurocomputing. Neurocomputing theory, practice and applications are the essential topics being covered.
Subject Area
COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
CiteScore
13.10
View Trend
CiteScore Ranking
Category | Quartile | Rank |
---|---|---|
Neuroscience - Cognitive Neuroscience | Q1 | #5/115 |
Neuroscience - Computer Science Applications | Q1 | #56/817 |
Neuroscience - Artificial Intelligence | Q1 | #41/350 |
Web of Science Core Collection
Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) | Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) |
---|---|
Indexed | - |
Category (Journal Citation Reports 2024) | Quartile |
---|---|
COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | Q1 |
H-index
110
Country/Area of Publication
NETHERLANDS
Publisher
Elsevier
Publication Frequency
Bimonthly
Year Publication Started
1989
Annual Article Volume
903
Open Access
NO
Contact
ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS, 1000 AE
Verified Reviews
I was not satisfied because the comments from the first reviewer were not difficult to address, not a major issue. The second reviewer was unprofessional and perfunctory. So, I made the revisions and replied, resubmitted, but it was rejected again within two days. The reason for rejection was that the editor believed there were no major changes. Haha, there weren't many areas that needed modification in the suggestions provided, and I answered and made revisions to each comment seriously, including the perfunctory reviewer's comments. Maybe they just have a lot of manuscripts and don't need mine. Both the reviewers and the editor are disappointing. I don't believe the editor couldn't see through the whole process of the second reviewer's empty words and perfunctory attitude.
2021.09.03 decision in process
2021.09.07 accepted
Also, I would like to share some submission experiences this time, hoping to be helpful to others.
First, the journal sent a total of 10 review invitations to me for the first round of review. Therefore, any changes in the status "Under review" could be either due to reviewers declining the invitation or the previous reviewers not responding, resulting in the editor logging into the system to send invitations to new reviewers. But overall, changes in the status "Under review" indicate that the manuscript is being processed.
Second, for the second round of review, an additional reviewer was added, who provided positive feedback and suggested conducting additional experiments but without making it mandatory. The other two reviewers who provided comments in the first round had already agreed to accept the manuscript, so the editor directly accepted it in the end. It seems that this journal tends to add reviewers for the second and third rounds of review. In my case, even after attempting to invite 10 reviewers, I still tried to invite new reviewers for the second round. Additionally, I know of many other submission cases where additional reviewers were added.
Add your recorded webinar
Do you already have a recorded webinar? Grow your audience and get more views by easily listing your recording on Peeref.
Upload NowAsk a Question. Answer a Question.
Quickly pose questions to the entire community. Debate answers and get clarity on the most important issues facing researchers.
Get Started