ÕâÊÇ×Ô¼ºÐ¡Ë¶½×¶ÎµÄµÚһƪÎÄÕ£¬ÍùÒ»¼Òieee transactionÉÏͶµÄ£¬ÕâÁ½Ìì»ØÀ´ÁËÉó¸åÒâ¼û£¬¡°Reject and Resubmit¡±£¬Çë¸÷λÓоÑéµÄÎÞ˽µÄ´ó³æ°ïæ·ÖÎöÏÂÉó¸åÒâ¼û£¬¸÷Ê㼺¼û£¬¿´¿´Èç¹ûÕâƪÎÄÕÂResubmitºóÓÐûÓб»½ÓÊյĿÉÄÜ£¬Õâ¹ý³ÌÖÐÓÐûÓÐÐèҪעÒâµÄµØ·½£¬ÒÔ°ïÖúÂÛ̳ÀïÏñÎÒÒ»ÑùµÄд×÷ÐÂÊֳɳ¤£¬Ð»Ð»¡£
ÒÔÏÂÊǸ±Ö÷±à¸øÎÒµÄÓʼþ£º
Dear ¡Á¡Á¡Á:
The review of paper ¡Á¡Á¡Á has been completed. Attached below please find the reviewers' comments.
After careful consideration of the reviewers' comments, the decision has been made not to publish this paper in the IEEE Transactions on ¡Á¡Á¡Á.
However, you may take into consideration the comments from the reviewers and re-submit it as a new submission within 120 days. If you choose to resubmit your paper, please refer to this original paper number (¡Á¡Á¡Á) when submitting and include a summary of the changes you have made in response to the AE and reviewers. The manuscript will undergo a new review process.
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the TRANSACTIONS. We look forward to the possibility of receiving more submissions on your future technical work.
Sincerely yours,
Prof. ¡Á¡Á¡Á
Associate Editor, IEEE Transactions on ¡Á¡Á¡Á
ÏÂÃæÊÇ°üº¬¸±Ö÷±àÔÚÄÚËÄλÉó¸åÈ˵ÄÒâ¼û
Associate Editor Comments:
This paper could be of interest to the IEEE ¡Á¡Á¡Á (special interest to the ¡Á¡Á¡Á, especially ¡Á¡Á¡Á). However, it needs major clarifications (in particular the paper adds) £¨´Ë´¦Ê²Ã´Òâ˼£¿£©and english editings.
Reviewer: 1
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:
This is a useful contribution to the field, primarily because it reports some experimental results which are all too rare. There are a subsatantial number of tidying-up corrections needed; I have thus chosen to offer annotated scans. Two points need clarification/rewriting:
1) pg 2, second sentence. I simply cannot guess what you are trying to say here.
2) pg 7, just above diagram. ¡Á¡Á¡Á needs more explanation. Occurs again pg 11, above fig 8.
Reviewer: 2
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:
The paper provides numerical and field test results for a real system. The simulated results are compared with experimental results thus constituting the paper interesting for publication (in principle).
However, the following comments should be addressed by the authors:
General Comments:
1. The level of English should be improved substantially. The paper should be carefully proofread to eliminate any grammar mistakes.
Specific Comments:
1. The scope and the contribution of the paper need to be clarified. What is the exact problem that the authors are addressing? How has the problem been addressed by others? What is the new contribution of the authors¡¯ method relative to the state of the art?
2. More details about the testing arrangement used for the measurements should be added in the paper.
3. A better theoretical explanation regarding the discrepancy of the simulated and field results is required.
4. It would be nice if the authors could briefly address the effect of ¡Á¡Á¡Á in their simulated results.
Reviewer: 3
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:
The reviewer would like to provide following suggestions to the authors:
1. In page 1, row 47: [5]-[6] shall be [5], [6]. Also in page 2, row 23 and row 58.
2. In page 3: The definition of ¡Á¡Á¡Á may better be listed in Table I for the understanding of Fig. 2, although they are defined in page 7.
3. In page 3, row 22: ¡.. as shown in Table I. The character I is omitted when converted to PDF file.
4. Page 6, row 58 to page 7, row 9: The values of parameters are better listed in a table.
5. Page 11: The purpose of Table II need to be clarified (also the meaning of imax+ and imax-). |