I fully understand and respect the rigor of the peer review system, and I am grateful for the selfless dedication of the reviewers and editors. However, in this case, a study aimed at providing "timely" new benchmark data for the entire academic community is having its novelty and impact diminished due to delays in the process.

I believe this is not an isolated incident. It reflects potential efficiency bottlenecks in the academic publishing system: overloaded editors, delays in finding and waiting for reviewer opinions, and so on.

While striving for rigor, should we also explore ways to optimize the process, especially for those manuscripts with strong timeliness? This not only concerns authors' anxiety but also whether academic achievements can be disseminated and applied within the most valuable time window.

(1) 讚！ | WallaceMM

First submission -> First review result (major revision): 2024.10.07 -> 2025.01.22 (about 3.5 months)
Resubmission -> Second review result (minor revision): 2025.02.08 -> 2025.05.17 (about 3 months)
Resubmission after minor revision -> Current status (still under review): 2025.05.22 -> present (more than 2 months)

In August 2023, a new sensor successfully launched into space. We were fortunate to obtain first-hand data and worked tirelessly for a year, thoroughly understanding the sensor's on-orbit performance and accuracy indicators, and wrote a performance verification report.

I often question myself in the late night:
Did the reviewers personally travel to space to verify my data?
Or is it that the editors are too busy and my emails are drowned in the electronic ocean?
At this rate of review, the next generation technology verification of this sensor should already be on the agenda. My "first-release" performance report is about to become an "annual" summary report, and in another two months, it will be a "historical" retrospective literature.

When the timeliness of the paper meets a marathon-like review cycle
60 days of silence after minor revision: How should we view the efficiency of peer review?
I am really curious, what exactly are they reviewing in a minor revision paper?
By the time it comes out, I can start writing the sequel, titled "A Study on the Performance Degradation of the Sensor in its First Year on Orbit."

(0) 讚！ | WallaceMiao

May I ask, how do you view unassigned edits? What is their status?

(0) 讚！ | TNH

I will make the necessary repairs and will return to you after receiving the feedback from the minor repairs. It will be two months and three days before I return, so please wait a little longer.

(0) 讚！ | XU-SAR

The submission was made on July 16th, but the editors have not been assigned yet. How long does it usually take for editors to be assigned?

(0) 讚！ | asdfg777

4.15 Submission
5.22 Major Revision
6.15 Revised
There has been no news so far. Do I need to write a reminder letter? Could it be possible that the reviewer for my major revision has left and they are looking for a new reviewer for me?

(0) 讚！ | 小发发

Okay, thank you.

(0) 讚！ | XU-SAR

It shouldn't be necessary, just make the changes in the paper and the system. Once it's been accepted, it can't be modified.

(0) 讚！ | AllShift

Could you please advise on what additional steps need to be taken during the minor revision stage to add an author, apart from modifying the manuscript and updating the author information in the system?

(0) 讚！ | XIAOWO-SAR

Is there any result? How long does it usually take to get the results after minor repairs?

(0) 讚！ | tttopdown

The review speed is very fast.
March 14, 2025 - Initial draft submitted
April 19, 2025 - First round of revisions given 28 days (4 reviewers provided over 20 comments)
May 15, 2025 - Revised draft returned (delayed half a month due to May Day holiday)
June 15, 2025 - Second round of minor revisions (1 reviewer provided 4 comments, others recommended acceptance)
June 20, 2025 - Minor revisions returned
June 22, 2025 - Accepted

(1) 讚！ | wangxiaoliu

2025.3.26 Submission
2025.5.6 Minor repairs
2025.5.28 Minor repairs returned

(0) 讚！ | NLmath

Oh? Why? Can Xiaoxiu still refuse? What does Xiaoxiu think? （┭┮﹏┭┮）

(0) 讚！ | xeason

2025.4.10 Submission
2025.5.7 Major maintenance
2025.5.27 Return from major maintenance
2025.6.17 Minor maintenance
2025.6.19 Return from minor maintenance

(0) 讚！ | zscurry30

Dear experts, I have been submitting to grss for over half a month, and the status has always been Initial Submission. This submission is under consideration and cannot be edited. Is this normal?

(2) 讚！ | 哎呀呀呀呀论文真难

Two reviewers rejected the revised manuscript, feeling upset.

(0) 讚！ | yeyedesu

Who has ever encountered a situation where after making minor revisions, the editor changes and requests more minor revisions, and then changes again and requests major revisions? Unheard of.

(0) 讚！ | 星河

Excuse me, have any of you experts in geophysical exploration ever submitted to this journal before? I previously submitted to TGRS, and the editor suggested submitting to this one instead, but I'm not sure because I don't specialize in remote sensing.

(0) 讚！ | 布布大王

Just uploaded my article on 13/06/2025, lets hope for the best! do not know abou the first decission time duration.

(0) 讚！ | ijazmn93@gmail.com

Received an email reminding to submit the major revisions.

(0) 讚！ | 溜溜果园

Have you received a 14-day reminder email during the 28-day maintenance period?

(0) 讚！ | @sword

Submitted On 29 May 2025

(0) 讚！ | Mia_LV

Submitted on February 24, 2025.
Major revision on April 21, 2025.
Revised on May 12, 2025.
Minor revision on May 20, 2025.
Awaiting results.

(0) 讚！ | DPJ@Z

Just saw, hit the jackpot on May 1st.

(0) 讚！ | Macxld

March 21, 2025: Submission of initial draft
April 11, 2025: Major revisions
May 23, 2025: Submission of responses to major revisions
May 29, 2025: Acceptance
Overall evaluation: Fast review speed, responsible editor, sharp and high-level reviewer comments. Major revisions were given 28 days, and an extension of 2 weeks was requested from the editor to complete experiments. The responses to major revisions totaled 41 pages. The reviewer's comments significantly improved the article and also provided a lot of knowledge. Thanks to the editor and reviewers.

(0) 讚！ | 溜溜果园