第一个审稿人说他我已经解决了他之前提的问题  然后对我的文章有兴趣  应该算是同意录用吧 第二个审稿人说 我解决了大部分问题  还有些需要修改 言辞比较激烈  但是也没说reject   为什么编辑给拒了
REFEREE REPORT(S):
Referee: 1

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The authors have addressed the comments I made in my earlier review,  and the article is of interest to the field.

Referee: 2

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The revised paper addressed most issues. However, in a few responses, the authors rely on the only results without any analysis or discussion. For instance, in the issues #4 the effect of lighting condition, #5, fast heart rate, #8 beards or moustaches, the authors just responded that the results were good. Well. This is a scientific journal. Rather than showing the good results, the potentail issues need to be investigated. Are you sure that lighting does not affect the performance at all? Are you sure that the performance is consistent regardless of low or high heart rate? Are you sure that the interfering factors such as beards or moustaches do not affet the performance at all? The authors should investigate the effect of light condition, heart rate values and other factors. After the investigation, the authors can conclude something with some statistical analysis with p value or so.

Furthermore, regarding the PTT representing a delay between a cheek and a forehead, is it really clinially acceptable parameter? Is there any literature. If it is, the authors can strengthen their argument with the reference.

 返回小木虫查看更多