The submission from the student. It is the first time I have experienced the speed of MDPI.
6.22 submit
7.10 major revision (3 reviewers)
7.20 resubmit
7.22 accept

(0) 讚！ | 子植chen

drones
2026-5-11 submit
2026-5-19 ppd lasted for a few days, sent an email to urge
2026-5-20 noon ur
2026-5-22 added hightlight by assistant editor
2026-6-11 major revise, 4 reviewers, mainly one reviewer had comments, relatively mild, asked me to add some flight experiments and simulation experiments for referencing papers, and another asked for comparative experiments + referencing papers. Unfortunately, the weather was bad and I couldn't do the flight experiments (outdoors), so it was postponed for a week
2026-6-28 uploaded revised manuscript
2026-7-2 ped all 4 reviewers gave accept, waiting for the decision of the editor-in-chief
2026-7-7 accept
2026-7-8 pending english (paid 2600 francs for page charges)
2026-7-8 English correction done
2026-7-9 Author proofreading - resubmitted
2026-7-10 Pending Conversion
2026-7-10 online that evening

(0) 讚！ | Ak8888

Submitted on February 28th
Assistant editor assigned on March 5th, APC confirmed
Requested to add highlights and institutional email on March 7th
Transferred to a new section of the journal on March 20th
Rejected on March 23rd with encouragement to resubmit. Three reviewers requested thorough revisions, including the addition of fair comparison experiments, parameter sensitivity analysis, and statistical validation, as well as a reorganization of the innovative points.
Resubmitted on May 31st
Major revisions on June 16th, with detailed feedback from three reviewers
Resubmitted on July 4th
Minor revisions on July 6th, added a few more references and adjusted some paragraphs
Accepted on July 13th

(0) 讚！ | 丁是丁真是真

Please translate the following paragraph into English: 
20260506 submit
20260523 major revision, 3 reviewers, a total of 25 comments, requested to add benchmark comparison
20260531 submitted
20260605 accept

(0) 讚！ | IRLS

Submission Experience -
Submitted on the evening of April 13th, entered "Under review" the next morning.
Received review comments on the afternoon of May 4th. All three reviewers gave very positive feedback, mostly with suggestions for additional literature and optimizing the writing style.
Completed revisions on the afternoon of May 8th, resubmitted, and entered the "revised" stage in the evening.
Accepted on the morning of May 11th, checked before paying the Article Processing Charge (APC), only reviewer 2 had minor suggestions for changes, the other two had no new issues, and the paper was accepted directly.
From submission to initial review completion, it took a total of 20 days, and from revision to acceptance, it took 28 days.
Based on personal experience, being accepted within 28 days is incredibly fast. Most accepted articles typically take 1-2 months. The editorial responses were timely and friendly, the reviewers' comments were clear and specific, without deliberate difficulties. With an impact factor of 4.8, the journal is considered good, with a JCR Q1 ranking. Although it dropped from Zone 2 to Zone 3 of the Chinese Academy of Sciences due to classification changes, there was no warning. As an Open Access (OA) journal, it may have some low-quality articles, but it does not become an academic stain when submitting.
Drawbacks: Expensive! 2600 CHF is equivalent to 22000 RMB at the current exchange rate. Before submitting, one must consider whether they or their supervisor can afford it! Additionally, the APC is usually due within 5-10 days, so ensure that there are sufficient funds available.

(0) 讚！ | BIGPAO

The submission was made on March 11th and accepted on April 20th. The first round of review was completed within 21 days, with 3 reviewers providing feedback - 2 suggested minor revisions and 1 suggested major revisions, which were implemented by the editor. After submitting the revised manuscript, the second round of review resulted in 2 reviewers agreeing to accept the article, while the third recommended minor revisions. In the third round of review, the third reviewer also agreed to accept the article. Overall, the journal review process was fast, the reviewers were thorough, and the feedback provided was helpful. You can only say that drones are fast, but you cannot say they are incompetent.

(0) 讚！ | 阿宝的爸爸

How was it solved in the later stage? The UAV itself has limited data.

(0) 讚！ | AKL2026

Hello, how did you solve it later? The UAV itself has limited data.

(0) 讚！ | AKL2026

As a result of the squatting, I also only have simulation experiments to submit to this journal.

(0) 讚！ | 金州拉文

I have learned a lot of submission experiences on LetPub, and now I would like to share some as well:
There were four reviewers, one of whom took a long time to review and provided very detailed comments. The editor suggested major revisions and additional experiments were conducted. I addressed each reviewer's questions, made corrections and improvements accordingly, and the paper was eventually accepted. The timeline is as follows:
November 19th: Submit
November 25th: Under review
December 22nd: Pending decision
December 29th: Pending major revision
January 5th: Resubmit
January 9th: Accept

(0) 讚！ | yuanqiang

I applied at the end of February 25 years ago, was hired in April, and worked on remote sensing applications. Before I applied, it was still considered as Area 2, but after I was hired, it became Area 3.

(0) 讚！ | UCASTKZ

2025-06-20 Submitted, assistant editor assigned in the afternoon
2025-07-06 Major revisions, opinions from 3 reviewers
2025-07-09 Additional opinions from a 4th reviewer
2025-07-15 Revised
2025-07-19 Accepted

(0) 讚！ | x.xssssss

8.22 submission
8.27 under review
9.22 major revision feedback
10.10 submit revised manuscript
10.29 accepted
Very efficient

(1) 讚！ | yznzi2007

My editor also requested to include physical experiments, stating that even if submitted for review, reviewers would be prompted to include physical experiments. To be honest, do papers with experiments really need to be submitted to MDPI?

(0) 讚！ | 特二十天

I just submitted my manuscript. I conducted a simulation experiment. The editor requested additional experimental data obtained using UAVs to validate the theoretical or numerical results. Do I need to conduct the experiment again? It will cost much more in terms of time and money compared to a simple simulation. Does anyone know what to do next?

(2) 讚！ | 6JFW

Brother, I just received this message as well (asking me to supplement the appropriate on-site experimental design during the modification stage), were you rejected in the first trial? Or did you not receive the results of the first trial yet?

(0) 讚！ | feecai

Accept within 2 months.

(0) 讚！ | 3416cjm

25.10.20 returned a feedback pending editor decision.

(0) 讚！ | yznzi2007

Can I return to Zone 2 this year?

(0) 讚！ | 3416cjm

Isn't this journal for revisions only?

(0) 讚！ | 我爱玩原神

Oh, I submitted this paper for the third time. The first one was accepted in just two months, but this time the editor requested hardware experiments. Sigh, I spent three days pulling an all-nighter to make major revisions, but in the end, it was still rejected. My first paper was also a simulation experiment, wasn't it?

(1) 讚！ | zed

Today is still under review. It won't be rejected, right?

(0) 讚！ | yznzi2007

After the revision, it is now under review. Today, the editor asked to change all the email addresses to institutional email addresses, which is really frustrating. Graduation is approaching and I can't wait to publish with Elsevier.

(0) 讚！ | yznzi2007

Was it rejected by the table? Can it be resubmitted after major repairs?

(0) 讚！ | LITUANTUAN

Hello, did you cite any papers from this journal when you submitted?

(0) 讚！ | LITUANTUAN