论文一审意见回来了，两个审稿人，一个Accept(minor editor)，一个reject( update and resubmit encouraged)
编辑给的拒稿重投：
n 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 paper 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, we need to reject an article even if it requires minor revisions.


两个审稿人，Accepted的意见很好回复。
reject的意见：
Reviewer: 2

Recommendation: Reject (update and resubmit encouraged)

Comments:
While a new architecture is proposed, its not very far from LSTM-DNN combinations that exist today. I would ask the authors to draw the following comparisons:
1. A comparison with gated RNN, and deep gated RNN
2. Comparison with HTM sequence learning architecture
3. Comparisons with hierarchical convolutional networks
4. Analysis related to learning speeds for each of the algorithms
5. Performance analysis on the impact of noisy data
6.  Include details and experimental analysis, on how regularisation is done for this network.

The writing needs a lot of improvement, such as sentence structure, citations and quality of the figures.

Additional Questions:
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: yes, partly

Is the paper technically sound?: Needs to be improved.

Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: More work to be done

Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Not sufficient


这个重投希望大吗？  如果重投，如何根据第二个评审人的意见改？我对这几个评审意见比较懵 返回小木虫查看更多