remote sensing审稿人意见,请问虫友们该怎么回啊
Dear authors. In my opinion, the paper is not well written.??More importantly, to introduce a new methodology (Classification of Hyperspectral Image Based on Double-Branch Dual-Attention Mechanism Network ) a suitable experimental design should be used.? This would require to have some very clear objectives. In my??opinion, objectives are not clear, and the results and validation sections are not convincing ... and generally poorly illustrated. Therefore, for the??time being, I cannot recommend to publish your manuscript. It need a major revision.
?Re-write the abstract, introduction and method sections.?
The method section is weak. You need to clarify the four steps (add a methodology flowchart, etc.)
all Figures are too small and hard to see clearly! Make larger please.?(Legend is not clear).
Figures and tables caption should be complete to let readers understand it well without referring to the text.
Overall, English grammar and formations are still poor, and need to be improved.
I personally think that your conclusion are weak.
返回小木虫查看更多
京公网安备 11010802022153号
不要沉啊不要沉
1.方法的实验对比结果,验证结果较差2.图表的细节上需要处理3.摘要,引言,结论等需求部分语法错误较大,且没有阐明出重点。
是个大修,建议您根据审稿人的意见点对点,逐条修改文章并回复。
总体来说 就是你写的不行,给大修 应该实验结果还是不错的
谢谢各位大佬,主要是conclusion are weak.和results and validation sections are not convincing两句不知道是什么意思…是说结果不可信?
下的结论欠佳,站不住脚。
结果和验证环节不让人信服
,
谢谢各位回复 文章已发表