版块导航: 正在加载中...

登录注册

应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜石溪大学接受考研调剂申请>

【调剂】北京石油化工学院2024年16个专业接受调剂

返回列表

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

CRHUSTSEEE

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 47
帖子: 4
在线: 4小时
虫号: 15937083

[交流] IEEE Access这样的初审意见还有戏吗？

7月11日投稿Access一篇，33天收到初审意见，2个评审专家，都是拒稿鼓励重投，一个审稿人没有意见，另一个说需要对论文进行调整。初审意见如下，各位大神帮忙看看，有没有遇到这种情况？重投还有戏吗？另外，因为没有什么具体的意见，additional questions中审稿人的评价还需要作出回复吗？

I am writing to you in regards to manuscript # Access-2019-26335 entitled "Computational Fault Time Difference Based Fault Location Method for Branched Power Distribution Networks" 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 article 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, an article is rejected even if it requires minor edits.

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.

We highly recommend that you review the grammar one more time before resubmitting.  IEEE offers a 3rd party service for language polishing, which you may utilize for a fee: https://www.aje.com/c/ieee (use the URL to claim a 10% discount).

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, the article may be rejected and no further resubmissions will be allowed.

When resubmitting, please submit as a new manuscript and include the following 3 files:

1) A document containing your response to reviewers from the previous peer review.  The “response to reviewers” document (template attached) should have the following regarding each comment: a) Reviewer’s concern, b) your response to the concern, c) your action to remedy the concern. The document should be uploaded with your manuscript files as a “Supplemental File for Review.”
2) Your updated manuscript with all your individual changes highlighted, including grammatical changes (e.g. preferably with the yellow highlight tool within the pdf file). This file should be uploaded with your manuscript files as a “Supplemental File for Review”.
3) A clean copy of the final manuscript (without highlighted changes) should be submitted as the “Formatted (Double Column) Main File – PDF Document Only.”

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. Taha Selim Ustun
Associate Editor, IEEE Access
tahaselim@yahoo.com

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: Reject (update and resubmit encouraged)

Comments:
Without comments

Additional Questions:
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: A little. Only with the statistical method to select the Travelling Wave Detector and  the nearest fault place.

Is the paper technically sound?: It presents as a disadvantage the costs associated with the amount of necessary Travelling Wave Detectors as the number of terminals in the power distribution network increases

Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Yes

Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: It lacks review on the effect of induction due to atmospheric discharges on the response of the Traveling Wave proposed methods

Reviewer: 2

Recommendation: Reject (update and resubmit encouraged)

Comments:
The authors should modify the manuscript.

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?: Yes

If you have any questions, please contact article administrator: Mr. Nishant Shukla n.shukla@ieee.org

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 抢金币啦！回帖就可以得到:
查看全部散金贴

1楼2019-08-14 14:59:39

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

iyx_yao

至尊木虫 (职业作家)

应助: 24 (小学生)
金币: 18624.1
帖子: 3715
在线: 834.6小时
虫号: 3085910

★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖

这些审稿人太水了。。。。

赞一下

回复此楼

12楼2019-08-17 22:31:30