IEEE Access期刊修回意见,修后重投,求帮助!!!
我今天收到IEEE Access期刊的一审意见:修后重投。
说到“最后,在您的求职信中,请注明您是否希望我们将您的文章分配给相同或不同的审稿人,我们将尽力满足您的要求。”
这个应该选择原审稿人?还是重新选择?
因为拒稿的那位审稿人给的意见不是很好修改,只能做详细的解释。而另外那位审稿人没有给任何意见。
我这种修后重投,别录用的概率大吗?解释完之后立刻上传?还是过一周在上传?谢谢!!
审稿人给的意见:
Finally, in your cover letter, please indicate if you would like us to assign your article to the same or different reviewers and we will do our best to accommodate your request.
We sincerely hope you will update your manuscript and resubmit soon. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Reviewer: 1
Recommendation: Reject (do not encourage resubmit)
The pipeline design is very similar to the work of [21] (i.e., the hierarchical network design and the random field to optimize the boundary), while the demonstrated results are not superior to that of [21] (their accuracy is 99% plus). The authors did not conduct a comparison with the work of [21]
Additional Questions:
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: OK
Is the paper technically sound?: Appears so.
Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: OK
Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: OK
Reviewer: 2
Recommendation: Accept (minor edits)
Comments:
This study compares the work with the state-of-the-art. The study reports high accuracies in the recognition.
Additional Questions:
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Yes
Is the paper technically sound?: YesIs the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Yes
Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Yes
返回小木虫查看更多
京公网安备 11010802022153号
编辑给了据稿重投的机会是看在reviewer2的意见上,但是如果reviewer2在系统中看到reviewer1的意见,很可能去仔细阅读文献[21].这也许对你不是很有利。如果你确实和文献21所提的模型或者方法存在明显不同的话,你可以把创新点列出来,一方面是对reviewer1的回复,另一方面也是防止reviewer2改变主意。
顶
仔细回答reviewer1的问题,然后请求换reviewer~~~
另外,楼主一审大概用了多久呀?
脕陆脰脺
脿脜脿脜拢卢脨禄脨禄拢卢路脟鲁拢赂脨脨禄脛煤拢隆
脿脜脿脜拢卢脨禄脨禄拢卢路脟鲁拢赂脨脨禄脛煤拢
,
脕陆脰脺