楼主是工科博士，偏控制方向。楼主的一篇SCI出了点问题，具体是这样的：一审两个审稿人A（对文章评价比较高也比较感兴趣，给的意见是小修，并提了10个问题）,审稿人B（对文章评价还行，给了大修，并提了4个问题）。
楼主修好后最近意见返回，A审稿人很满意同意发表，B审稿人拒稿，编辑最后给了拒稿，可能编辑也觉得有点冤，最后编辑说“One reviewer is opposite to the publication. I advise you to take into account his remarks to submit your paper again.”
看网上的像我这种情况的一般都录用了，请问我该怎么办？重新投稿不知道又要花多久，真心难受。
    我分析原因主要是楼主在回答审稿人的问题的时候说了下面的两条（第一个审稿人都觉得没有什么问题，然后第二个审稿人觉得有问题），具体如下：
    ①The classical control theory involves single input and single output system which is powerless when it comes to the multiple input and multiple output system.
②The classical control theory is also named as the conventional control theory. The research object of the classical control theory is the automatic control system of single input and single output, especially the linear system, which is powerless as to the multiple input and multiple output system. However, the AUV in our manuscript is a multiple input and multiple output under-actuated system. Therefore, the conventional control theory will be difficult and cannot to be used.
下面是审稿人B的回复，拒稿的原因基本就出在了这里。
In the responses to the comments, the authors declare that conventional control theory cannot be used to control the underactuated AUV systems. The authors only focus on the conventional linear controllers, such as PID and PD for the single input and single output linear systems. However, the general nonlinear controllers for multi-input and multi-output nonlinear systems have not been taken into consideration. As we know, the commonly used control techniques for underactuated nonlinear systems are Lyapunov-based nonlinear controllers, rather than linear controller based on local approximate linearization.    The limitations of approximate linearization include local controllability and invalidation for large initial errors. In addition, the linearizable regions of the system model cannot be quantitatively determined. By contrast, it has a great potential to design a nonlinear controller for trajectory tracking of the AUVs, which can achieve better tracking performances. Thus, from the viewpoint of the reviewer, the controller designed in this paper has many limitations for applications, at least the superiority and novelty of the work have not been well presented.
     我想问的是审稿人有没有曲解我的意思，或者我的说法存在什么问题，审稿人的回复有问题吗 ？谢谢。 返回小木虫查看更多