The level should still be high and low. I have seen Daniel's post. For example, Masatoshi Ishikawa, who I paid more attention to before, is a professor who can send many IEEE journals and summit articles a year, and also sent sensors. I was very surprised when I first saw it.

In the case of sufficient funds, you can invest in methods that have not achieved significant results in order to make up the number. This is originally a biased research direction. You can throw away the sensor in geophysical electromagnetic field, and occasionally there are some interesting articles telling the truth. There is no need to completely deny it.

Be reasonable, articles are becoming more and more subtle these days. Don't think trans is more noble. Not much to say, just compare yourself around 10 with the present. There are only a few routines for applied disciplines. I don't know, 95% of them are useless articles. If you invest too much, you will get a little X. There is no need to kill each other.

The vast majority of papers on remote sensing are just the workload of old remote sensing journals (such as pers and IJRS) (the acceptance rate data is not available for the time being, and the workload is not equal to innovation. For example, the workload can be increased by increasing comparative experiments. )。 The overall feeling is worse than J star. But if you choose 400 articles, it should be similar to or even better than J-STARS.

User experience:

When I was a master, I had a paper on sensors, and I felt like I was reading the reviewers. Some commentators read it carefully and commented in detail. Some commentators probably said a few words from the general direction, so that you don't know how to answer. The review speed is absolutely super fast, usually within one month, but it is really expensive.