| 查看: 8269 | 回复: 14 | ||
[求助]
IEEE ACCESS 拒稿，请问这样的意见还有必要重投吗？已有3人参与
|
||
|
17-Jan-2019 Dear Dr. ****: I am writing to you in regards to manuscript *********entitled "********************" which you submitted to IEEE Access. In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s) found at the bottom of this letter, your manuscript has not been recommended for publication in IEEE Access. We do encourage you to revise and resubmit your paper once you have addressed the concerns and criticisms of the reviewers. I believe they have added good insight on how to further improve your article. IEEE Access has a binary peer review process that does not allow revisions. Therefore, in order to uphold quality to IEEE standards, we need to reject an article even if it requires minor revisions. Please revise your manuscript based on reviewers’ feedback and resubmit; elaborate on your points and clarify with references, examples, data, etc. If you do not agree with the reviewers’ views, then include your arguments in the updated manuscript. Also, note that if a reviewer suggested references, you should only add ones that will make your article better and more complete. Recommending references to specific publications is not appropriate for reviewers and you should report excessive cases to ieeeaccessEIC@ieee.org. NEW: Please be advised that authors are only permitted to resubmit their article ONCE. If the updated manuscript is determined not to have addressed all of the previous reviewers’ concerns during the second peer review, the article will be rejected and no further resubmissions will be allowed. When resubmitting, please submit as a new manuscript; however include a list of the updates that you made from the previous manuscript in a separate document. The list of updates should have the following regarding each comment: 1) Reviewer’s concern, 2) your response to the concern, 3) actual changes implemented. For grammatical corrections, we kindly request that you highlight all individual changes in the updated manuscript. As an example, you may submit your revised article with the "editing mode" feature turned on. Finally, in your cover letter, please indicate if you would like us to assign your article to the same or different reviewers and we will do our best to accommodate your request. We sincerely hope you will update your manuscript and resubmit soon. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your interest in IEEE Access. Sincerely, Dr. Jafar Alzubi Associate Editor, IEEE Access j.zubi@bau.edu.jo Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: Reviewer: 1 Recommendation: Accept (minor edits) Comments: Please explain what wavelets you have used and how you have arrived at the plots of Fig.2. Additional Questions: Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Yes. Is the paper technically sound?: Broadly, yes. Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Yes, by and large. Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Yes. Reviewer: 2 Recommendation: Reject (update and resubmit encouraged) Comments: Please find the attachment. Additional Questions: Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: The idea of the proposed method is not highly novel in the sense that the authors simply combine some known approaches. However, this paper seems interesting for possible readers and contribute to the related field. Is the paper technically sound?: Yes Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Yes Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Yes Reviewer: 3 Recommendation: Reject (update and resubmit encouraged) Comments: The paper is well organized, but there are still several problems to be solved before acceptable. 1. The specific process of the proposed method is not clearly described in the abstract. The abstract should be improved. 2. All subpictures in Figure 2 should be in one page. 3. The references are not enough, and the authors should cite some widely related KNN-based classification and representation-based classification such as “A generalized mean distance-based k-nearest neighbor classifier, Expert Systems with Applications, 2019” and “A New Discriminative Collaborative Neighbor Representation Method for Robust Face Recognition, IEEE Access, 2018”。 4. The authors should carefully do the proofreading. Additional Questions: Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Yes. Is the paper technically sound?: Yes. Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Yes. Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: No. Reviewer: 4 Recommendation: Reject (do not encourage resubmit) Comments: the overall contribution is not significant. 1. The title is improper. 2. The review for ******** is incomplete, especially for those using the feature-based algorithms. 3. The content of this paper is incomplete. I miss the content of Part III illustrated in Figure 1. 4. As the proposed method is application oriented, real data should be used to test the proposed method. 5. The authors should consider comparisons with the deep learning based modulation recognition methods. Additional Questions: Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Partially Is the paper technically sound?: No. Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: No. Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Should be completed Reviewer: 5 Recommendation: Reject (update and resubmit encouraged) Comments: In general, this paper is easy to follow, and well structured. Comments: 1. In this paper, decisions are made by using k-nearest neighbor (k-NN). Many existing methods for decision are based on SVM. I wonder why authors introduce the k-nn for decisions, rather than SVM. More explanations need to be provided here. 2. Details related work will be helpful. More references should be added. Especially for IMOP recognition, there are many works in recent years. 3. The typesetting is confusion at the page of 7. 4. Some symbols are missed in the paper, please be clear. 5. The paper had better seek professionals or native English speakers to revise. Additional Questions: Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: yes Is the paper technically sound?: yes Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: yes Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: no 如果重投，第4个审稿人已经否定了贡献......... |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
一审一个审稿人，小修，会怎么样呀？
已经有7人回复
-
哎
已经有5人回复
-
院士建议：对勇于提出解决卡脖子问题新解决方案的学者加大资助力度
已经有10人回复
-
25申博记录贴
已经有4人回复
-
紫外光谱
已经有3人回复
-
事业单位还是大学好？
已经有16人回复
-
考研英语带学
已经有5人回复
-
298求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
家乡二本高校/沿海传统私企，如何抉择？
已经有13人回复
-
下雨了
已经有19人回复
xiangdl2013
新虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 3788.6
- 散金: 920
- 红花: 6
- 帖子: 1110
- 在线: 240.8小时
- 虫号: 4404724
- 注册: 2016-02-16
- 专业: 声学
2楼2019-01-17 15:34:20
redjade
至尊木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 4 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 22653.4
- 散金: 1221
- 红花: 4
- 帖子: 2707
- 在线: 219.7小时
- 虫号: 435803
- 注册: 2007-08-25
- 专业: 高分子科学
5楼2019-01-17 16:00:32
yuanmd
至尊木虫 (知名作家)
衔头义定自
- 应助: 58 (初中生)
- 金币: 9949.2
- 散金: 3502
- 红花: 27
- 帖子: 5262
- 在线: 641.6小时
- 虫号: 1148791
- 注册: 2010-11-16
- 专业: 模式识别
6楼2019-01-17 16:41:37
youngen
木虫之王 (文学泰斗)
- 应助: 4526 (副教授)
- 贵宾: 10.842
- 金币: 438850
- 散金: 5400
- 红花: 888
- 帖子: 177529
- 在线: 5024.9小时
- 虫号: 2082233
- 注册: 2012-10-24
- 专业: 中国古代史
7楼2019-01-17 17:05:38
editsprings 
捐助贵宾 (著名写手)
- 应助: 794 (博后)
- 金币: 3322.5
- 散金: 3101
- 红花: 81
- 帖子: 1083
- 在线: 473.8小时
- 虫号: 4655759
- 注册: 2016-05-04
- 专业: 无机纳米化学
9楼2019-01-18 09:40:44
bbsslls
新虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 2 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 222.6
- 散金: 240
- 帖子: 79
- 在线: 165.6小时
- 虫号: 3317420
- 注册: 2014-07-10
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 信号理论与信号处理
3楼2019-01-17 15:46:18
|
本帖内容被屏蔽 |
10楼2019-01-18 10:36:06
4楼2019-01-17 15:56:57
8楼2019-01-17 18:38:16
5