（2015年7月11日投稿，7月21日进入格式审查，8.1日通过格式审查，in peer review至今（9月22日），被拒，两个审稿人，一个给R但建议“大修”重投，一个给AQ。）

首先，请教各位虫友们，
     1. 我应该怎么处理这篇文章呢，我想尽快发一篇SCI，因为我想凭借文章来联系读博的导师（国内、国外）。
     2. 第一个审稿人说我的文章写的更像“research report”而不是“research paper”。我该怎么改正呢？
     3. 还有语言写作，导师是靠不住了，有没有好的方法来解决？
恳请虫友们多多指教！

附审稿意见：
AE
      Based on the attached set of reviews, I regret to inform you that I have to decide to REJECT the  paper for publication. In summary, the reviewers have reported weaknesses in terms of technical content and use of English language. Considering that the decision process for the IEEE Signal Processing Letters is BINARY (papers that need major revisions are not accepted), I regret that I cannot offer you a more positive decision at this point because we do appreciate your interest in publishing in the IEEE Signal Processing Letters.

REVIEWER 1:
#Recommendation: R - Reject (Paper Is Not Of Sufficient Quality Or Novelty To Be Published In This Transactions)
#Comments:
     In this paper, the authors proposed a new method to XXXX. In order to reduce the computational complexity, the authors did a nice try by XXX. The idea is interesting. However, this paper was written more like a research report instead of a research paper. Because the decision of IEEE SPL is binary, this reviewer suggests to reject the current version and encourages the authors to make a major revision and resubmit.
#major problems:
     1.XXxx
     2.XXxx
#There are several minor problems should be fixed:
     XXXXXXXXX
#Additional Questions:
     1. Is the topic appropriate for publication in this transaction?: Yes
     2. Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field?: Yes
#Explain:  
     3. How would you rate the technical novelty of the paper?: Somewhat Novel
     4. How would you rate the English usage? : Needs improvement
     6. Rate the references: Satisfactory

REVIEWER 2:
#Recommendation: AQ - Publish In Minor, Required Changes
#Comments:
    This work presents a novel XXXX based on XXXX. The proposed strategy consists of  XXXX. The proposed approach is compared with several existing techniques via simulations, where it either outperforms or is comparable to existing more complex algorithms.
     The paper is not very well written and needs English improvements in most sections even though the small mistakes do not prevent the assessment of the work. The technical contributions are reasonably good (XXX) and new in this context. The experimental validation is appropriate and the list of references acknowledge most recent contributions in the area.
     Based on the above comments, it is recommended acceptance of the manuscript subject to corrections in the English.
#Additional Questions:
     1. Is the topic appropriate for publication in this transaction?: Yes
     2. Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field?: Yes
#Explain:  
     3. How would you rate the technical novelty of the paper?: Somewhat Novel
     4. How would you rate the English usage? : Needs improvement
     6. Rate the references: Satisfactory 返回小木虫查看更多