Rejected from IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing? The 7 Best Journals to Submit Next
Rejected from IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing? 7 alternative venues ranked by fit, selectivity, review speed, and APC, plus EDICS routing.
Readiness scan
Find out what this manuscript actually needs before you pay for a larger service.
Run the Free Readiness Scan to see whether the real issue is scientific readiness, journal fit, figures, citations, or language support before you buy editing or expert review.
Quick answer: If you were rejected from IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing (IEEE Signal Processing Society, impact rating ~6.1, Q1), you are in normal company: the journal is selective and returns many submissions at the desk, often for thin novelty or an EDICS mismatch, before external review even begins. Your best next journal depends on why it was rejected.
When the method is really about images or video, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing; for communications-theory work, IEEE Transactions on Communications; for audio, speech, or language signals, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing; for a fundamental theorem with proofs, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory; for one sharp result, IEEE Signal Processing Letters; for a sound paper that wants an open-access society home, IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing; for broad applied work, EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing.
Before you send the manuscript anywhere, decide whether the rejection was about scope and EDICS classification (reclassify and move now) or about a thin theoretical contribution and a missing performance analysis (fix it first, or the next reviewer raises the same point). IEEE does not auto-transfer rejected papers, so the next move is yours to choose. Run an IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing manuscript fit check to see whether scope, novelty, or evaluation was the real problem.
Why IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing rejected your paper
IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing sits at the top of its category and screens submissions through a fast, scope-strict desk filter before any external review. Its published acceptance bar is two-part and blunt: a paper needs novelty, meaning new or innovative methods, and appropriateness, meaning a complete, well-written manuscript inside the journal's scope. The journal also names an explicit immediate-rejection trigger: a manuscript that lacks novelty, for example a straightforward combination of well-established, repeatable theories and algorithms. Three reasons account for most rejections.
The signal-processing theory is not the protagonist. TSP wants novel theory, algorithms, and performance analysis for processing signals. An application paper that uses standard estimation or detection machinery to solve a domain problem reads as out of scope when the methodological advance is thin. A handling editor can return a competent application study on these grounds alone, because the contribution lives in the application, not the signal-processing theory.
EDICS mismatch and scope drift. Every manuscript must carry an EDICS classification, and the wrong code routes the paper to the wrong reviewers. Work whose real center of gravity is image and video processing belongs in IEEE Transactions on Image Processing; communications-theory work belongs in IEEE Transactions on Communications; audio and speech work belongs in TASLP. A paper coded into TSP that actually lives in a sister venue gets filtered fast.
Incremental work without a mechanism. An Nth variation of a known estimator, filter, or optimization algorithm, with a small numerical gain and no new theory, reads as routine at a venue whose policy rejects straightforward combinations of established methods. The detailed, manuscript-testable versions of all three failures are in the rejection-patterns section below.
The 7 best journals to submit next
Journal | Selectivity / fit | Scope | Review speed | APC (gold OA) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
IEEE Transactions on Image Processing | Highly competitive; IF ~13.3, Q1 | Theory and algorithms for images, video, multidimensional signals | First decision ~3-5 months | ~$2,495 (hybrid OA option) |
IEEE Transactions on Communications | Selective; IF ~9.8, Q1 | Communications theory, coding, transmission, networking | First decision ~2-4 months | ~$2,995 (hybrid OA option) |
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing | Selective; IF ~6.4, Q1 | Audio, speech, and language signal processing and systems | First decision ~3-5 months | ~$2,195 (hybrid OA option) |
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory | Selective; IF ~2.8, Q1 | Fundamental theory of information, coding, estimation limits | First decision slow, often 6-12 months | ~$2,995 (hybrid OA option) |
IEEE Signal Processing Letters | Selective; IF ~3.9, Q1 | Short, sharp signal-processing results (concise format) | First review ~1-2 months | ~$2,045 (hybrid OA option) |
IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing | Sound-science bar; IF ~2.8, Q2 | Signal-processing theory, algorithms, applications | First decision ~2-3 months | $1,995 (mandatory OA) |
EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing | Sound-science bar; IF ~1.9 | Broad applied and theoretical signal processing | First decision ~3-5 months | ~$1,690 (mandatory OA) |
Source: IEEE Signal Processing Society journal and policy pages, IEEE Open publishing-options pages, Springer EURASIP journal pages, SciRev community data, and JCR 2024 (accessed June 2026). APCs are list prices excluding tax and may differ at submission.
1. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing. This is the closest sibling when your real signal is an image, a video, or a multidimensional array rather than a one-dimensional time series. If TSP returned the paper because the method was demonstrated only on imaging data, TIP editors may read the same work as squarely in scope. The bar is high and the IF (~13.3) is the highest on this list, so the theory still has to hold, but the EDICS mismatch that sank the TSP submission largely disappears.
2. IEEE Transactions on Communications. Reach for T-COM when the contribution is really communications theory, coding, transmission, or networking, and the signal-processing machinery is the vehicle rather than the point. If reviewers at TSP praised your estimator but doubted that it was a signal-processing advance, T-COM lets the communications contribution be the protagonist. Acceptance norms are comparable, so this is a fit move, not a soft landing.
3. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing. TASLP is the right home when the signals are audio, speech, or language and the contribution is the processing method for them, including analysis, synthesis, enhancement, classification, or interpretation. A paper rejected from TSP for being too application-specific to audio or speech often reads as on-target here, because the application is the scope rather than a scope problem.
4. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. The better venue when the advance is a fundamental limit, a converse, an achievability proof, or an estimation bound, rather than an algorithm and its performance analysis. T-IT rewards mathematical depth and rigor over numerical results. The IF (~2.8) understates its prestige in the field; the tradeoff is a long, demanding review cycle, so pursue it only when the theory is the contribution.
5. IEEE Signal Processing Letters. SPL is the fast step-down inside the same scope for a single, sharp result that does not need a full Transactions treatment. It enforces a short format and turns first reviews around faster than the Transactions. If your paper's real content is one clean theorem or one decisive performance result that got buried in a 13-page submission, compress it and send it here.
6. IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing. OJ-SP is the same society's open-access venue and the natural landing spot for technically sound work that did not clear the flagship's novelty bar. It is fully gold open access, so factor the APC into the decision, but the topical fit is essentially identical, which removes the scope-mismatch risk that sinks cross-venue moves. A TSP handling editor can also offer a Reject with Invitation to Resubmit as a Short Paper to OJ-SP, in which case this is your pre-vetted next step.
7. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing. The broadest realistic landing spot. It judges work on theoretical and practical signal-processing merit across a wide application range, from radar and sonar to biomedical and remote sensing, so a competent paper returned as incremental theory often clears here on applied grounds. The tradeoff is a lower IF (~1.9), but it is fully open access with the lowest APC on this list.
The cascade strategy
IEEE does not operate an automatic cross-journal transfer the way Nature Portfolio or the Elsevier Article Transfer Service do. There is no one-click cascade and no carried-over reviews, so after an IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing rejection you choose and submit to the next venue yourself. The Signal Processing Society does run EDICS-aware routing, but that happens during editorial screening, before review, not as a post-rejection transfer.
The one related mechanism is a Reject with Invitation to Resubmit as a Short Paper to the IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing, which a handling editor may offer when the work is sound but does not fit the flagship; treat that invitation as a routing suggestion, not an obligation.
Note also the society's resubmission rule: a manuscript rejected for any reason other than scope may be resubmitted to the same journal only once, so manage the resubmission count across venues deliberately.
Cascade by fit and by rejection reason, not by impact factor alone. Drop one tier at a time and match the venue to what your paper actually is.
Rejection reason | Fix first? | Next venue |
|---|---|---|
Out of scope / EDICS mismatch at desk | Reclassify and reframe, no new data | TIP (images), T-COM (comms), TASLP (audio/speech), T-IT (theory) |
Thin novelty after review, but sound | Sharpen positioning or step down | IEEE Signal Processing Letters, IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing |
Thin theory / missing performance analysis | Yes, add the analysis or proofs | Resubmit only after the contribution is strengthened |
Single clean result over-padded to 13 pages | Compress | IEEE Signal Processing Letters (short format) |
Source: IEEE Signal Processing Society Information for Authors and Manusights pre-submission review observations (June 2026).
Practical ladder by rejection reason:
- Desk-rejected for scope or an EDICS mismatch? Do not resend the same classification to another signal-processing venue. Route it to where the contribution actually lives: TIP for image and video methods, T-COM for communications theory, TASLP for audio and speech, or T-IT when the contribution is a fundamental limit or proof.
- Rejected for incremental novelty but sound science? This is the classic step-down case.
IEEE Signal Processing Letters fits a single sharp result; IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing fits a broader sound-science paper in the same society. Both judge soundness rather than narrative novelty.
- Rejected after review for a thin theoretical contribution or a missing performance analysis? Fix it before resubmitting anywhere. Every serious signal-processing venue raises the same point. Carry the strengthened theory or analysis into the next submission.
Common rejection patterns
In our pre-submission review work with IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing manuscripts, the rejections we see most often cluster into four named patterns. Each is journal-specific and testable against your own manuscript, which is what makes them worth checking before you resubmit anywhere.
The application paper with a thin theoretical contribution. Across our IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing pre-submission reviews, the single most common desk-reject trigger is a paper that applies standard estimation, detection, or filtering machinery to a domain problem without advancing the signal-processing theory itself. The abstract promises a method, but the methods section recombines well-established, repeatable algorithms, which is the exact pattern the journal names as a candidate for immediate rejection.
This is testable: write your contribution in one sentence and ask whether the novel part is a new signal-processing theory or algorithm, or a new application of an existing one. If it is the latter, the work fits an application-focused venue such as EURASIP or a sister Transactions, not the TSP flagship.
EDICS misclassification sending the paper to the wrong community. A second recurring pattern in the IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing manuscripts we review is a strong paper that simply belongs elsewhere in the IEEE Signal Processing Society portfolio. Work whose real signal is an image or video reads as out of place against reviewers expecting one-dimensional signal-processing theory; audio, speech, communications, and information-theory contributions get the same treatment.
The fix here is to name your signal and your contribution in one sentence, then check which journal's scope statement and EDICS list match best, and submit there rather than defaulting to the highest-impact title in the society.
Missing or weak performance analysis. The component most IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing reviewers scrutinize is the performance analysis. We repeatedly flag manuscripts that propose an algorithm but never bound it, never compare it to a current state-of-the-art baseline, or report simulation results with no confidence intervals or variance. The journal's scope explicitly includes performance analyses, and reviewers read an unanalyzed algorithm as an unfinished contribution.
Before resubmitting anywhere stricter than the open-access venues, add the theoretical analysis or, at minimum, current baselines with the statistical spread on every performance figure.
Incremental delta on a saturated problem. The fourth pattern is an Nth paper on a well-studied estimator, beamformer, or optimization setup, with a small numerical improvement and no new mechanism or model. Reviewers ask what a reader could not already do with the existing literature, and if the honest answer is a slightly better number, the paper is returned under the lacks-novelty policy.
Read your own contribution statement and ask whether it names a new theory or only a new measurement. If it is only a measurement, the work fits a Letters venue or an open-access journal better than the flagship.
A SciRev community report for IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing notes desk decisions arriving quickly with limited feedback, which is consistent with a venue that screens hard for scope, EDICS, and novelty before review. Plan around that cadence when you decide whether to reclassify and move quickly or to strengthen the theory first.
Readiness check
Find out what this manuscript actually needs before you choose a service.
Run the free scan to see whether the issue is scientific readiness, journal fit, or citation support before paying for more help.
Who each option is best for
Choose IEEE Transactions on Image Processing if the real signal is an image, video, or multidimensional array and the method advances imaging theory or algorithms, especially if reviewers praised your method but doubted the one-dimensional framing.
Choose IEEE Transactions on Communications if the contribution is really communications theory, coding, or transmission and the signal-processing machinery was the vehicle, and the work can withstand a selective review.
Choose IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing if the signals are audio, speech, or language and the contribution is the processing method or system for them rather than general signal-processing theory.
Choose IEEE Transactions on Information Theory if the advance is a fundamental limit, a converse, an achievability proof, or an estimation bound, and you can absorb a long, demanding review cycle that rewards mathematical depth.
Choose IEEE Signal Processing Letters if the paper's real content is one clean result that fits a short format and you want a fast first decision without a long second cycle.
Choose IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing if the science is sound and the rejection was about novelty rather than scope or rigor, you can absorb a gold open-access APC, or a TSP editor invited you to resubmit there as a short paper.
Choose EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing if the paper is technically sound and was returned for thin theory rather than a real flaw, and you want a broad, fast, open-access home at the lowest APC on this list.
Before you resubmit
Don't just resubmit the same file to the next venue. The fastest way to collect a second rejection is to send an unrevised manuscript to a journal that screens for the same thing IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing did, and some manuscripts need real work, not a faster next submission.
A desk rejection for scope or an EDICS mismatch is a routing problem you can fix by reclassifying, reframing the contribution statement, and choosing the journal whose scope actually matches the work. A post-review rejection for a thin theoretical contribution or a missing performance analysis is a substance problem, and the same concerns reappear at any serious signal-processing venue. Be honest about which one you got.
Two cases call for real work before resubmitting. First, if reviewers questioned whether the method is a genuine advance, the manuscript needs the theoretical analysis, the proof, or at least current baselines with confidence intervals it was missing. Second, if two independent reviewers both said the core idea is not new and you cannot name a new theory or mechanism, sending the same paper down the ladder usually buys another rejection.
Submit only when you can name the specific thing you changed since the last decision. Appealing is rarely worth it: a scope, EDICS, or novelty rejection is an editorial judgment, not a factual error, and the appeal queue is slower than a clean resubmission to a better-fit journal.
Resubmission checklist
Before submitting to your next journal, work through these factors. A few hours here saves weeks of waiting on a second rejection.
Factor | Question to answer | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
Theory vs application | Is the novel part a new signal-processing theory or algorithm, or a new application of an existing one? | An application paper with a thin theoretical contribution is the most common desk reject; route an application result to a sister or applied venue |
EDICS and scope fit | Which journal's scope statement and EDICS list does your one-sentence contribution match best? | An EDICS mismatch routes you to the wrong reviewers; match the signal type, not the journal's prestige |
Performance analysis | Is the algorithm bounded, compared to current baselines, and reported with variance or confidence intervals? | A missing or weak performance analysis is a top reviewer trigger; the next venue checks too |
Novelty statement | Does your contribution name a new theory or mechanism, or only a better number? | A straightforward combination of established methods is rejected by policy; route a measurement-only result to a Letters venue |
Reformatting | Have you adapted to the new journal's template, page limit (TSP caps initial submissions at 13 pages; SPL is much shorter), EDICS codes, and cover-letter norms? | Carrying over the old journal's formatting signals a rushed cascade |
Run an IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing manuscript scope and readiness check to confirm scope alignment, EDICS fit, and performance-analysis depth before you resubmit. You can also find a better-fit alternative journal in 30 seconds before you finalize the target.
Frequently asked questions
Match the next venue to why it was rejected. When the method is really about images, video, or multidimensional signals, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing is the closest sibling. For communications-theory and transmission work, IEEE Transactions on Communications. For audio, speech, or language signals, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing. For a fundamental theorem with converse and achievability proofs, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. For a single sharp result, IEEE Signal Processing Letters.
There is no mandatory waiting period for a different journal, and you can only have a manuscript under review at one venue at a time. If it was a desk rejection for EDICS or scope mismatch, you can resubmit to a better-fit journal within days after reclassifying and reframing the contribution statement. If reviewers flagged a thin theoretical contribution or a missing performance analysis, budget two to four weeks to add that work first, because the same gap surfaces at the next signal-processing venue.
Appeal only if you can point to a clear factual error in the review, such as a reviewer misreading your problem formulation or evaluating you against the wrong baseline. A scope, EDICS, or incremental-novelty rejection is an editorial judgment, not an error, so routing to a better-fit IEEE Signal Processing Society venue is almost always faster than appealing.
No. IEEE does not run an automatic cross-journal transfer like the Nature Portfolio or the Elsevier Article Transfer Service. EDICS-aware routing happens during editorial screening, not after a rejection, so there is no one-click cascade. The one related mechanism is a Reject with Invitation to Resubmit as a Short Paper to the IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing, which a handling editor may offer; otherwise you resubmit manually.
Rejection is the normal outcome. The journal is selective and screens hard at the desk, returning manuscripts that lack novelty, such as a straightforward combination of well-established theories, or that are misclassified by EDICS, before external review. A rejection is information about fit and framing, not a verdict on the science.
Sources
- Sources used for the journal facts on this page (scope, review model, selectivity, transfer policy, and APC) are the primary IEEE, Springer, and Clarivate references below, cross-checked against the journals' own author and policy pages. Metrics and rejection patterns are kept consistent with our other IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing pages.
- IEEE Signal Processing Society Information for Authors
- IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing (IEEE Signal Processing Society)
- IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing Information for Authors
- EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing Aims and Scope (Springer)
- Clarivate Journal Citation Reports (JCR 2024)
Final step
Run the scan before you spend more on editing or external review.
Use the Free Readiness Scan to get a manuscript-specific signal on readiness, fit, figures, and citation risk before choosing the next paid service.
Best for commercial comparison pages where the buyer is still choosing the right help.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Same journal, next question
Supporting reads
Conversion step
Run the scan before you spend more on editing or external review.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.