24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

martinawd

铁虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 108
帖子: 3
在线: 16.2小时
虫号: 2192864
注册: 2012-12-18
专业: 电磁场与电路

[交流] 一审“Reject with the possibility to resubmit”，该怎么办啊？？！！已有11人参与

投的是ieee transactions on power electronics，两位审稿人的意见都是Reject with the possibility to resubmit，主编给的决定也是Reject with the possibility to resubmit，我是该修改后重新提交，还是改投其他家？求各位意见啊，事关毕业，好急！！

Dear Prof. **:

Manuscript ***which you submitted to the IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, has been reviewed.  The comments from reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s), I must decline the manuscript for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics at this time.  However, a new manuscript may be submitted which takes into consideration these comments. Please understand, though, that this is a decision of reject and not a decision of major revision. Therefore, in order for the paper to be reconsidered we must require: 1) stronger and new results be added to improve the research contribution of the paper; 2) revisions must be made that incorporate all of the reviewers' concerns; and 3) you must wait at least two months to resubmit the manuscript to give you sufficient time to make the serious changes required.

If you decide to resubmit, please include a cover letter that mentions this paper number and describes the major changes to the manuscript. In particular, please summarize the new results that have been added. This should be accompanied by a point by point explanation of 1) how the previous comments from the reviewers were addressed and 2) how new results added to the paper make it stronger and increase the research contribution. The response to reviewers should be uploaded as a "supplementary file," in addition to being uploaded as a cover letter so that all reviewers will have access to the file. Lastly, please make sure to highlight the changes in the paper (or at least use a different font color). If the changes are too much, highlight the major additions to the paper. Please do not submit a paper with track changes, as track changes make the paper difficult for reviewers to read.

Please note that resubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your resubmission will be subject to re-review by the reviewer(s) before a decision is rendered.

You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of your manuscript.  Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer.

Once you have revised your manuscript, go to https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tpel-ieee and login to your Author Center.  Click on "Manuscripts with Decisions," and then click on "Create a Resubmission" located next to the manuscript number.  Then, follow the steps for resubmitting your manuscript.

I wish you the best of luck in any of your revisions.

Sincerely,
Dr. Brad Lehman
Editor in Chief, IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics
lehman@ece.neu.edu

AE's Comments to Author:

Associate Editor
Comments to the Author (Required):
The work is of interest but many technical details need to be clarified and expanded upon.

Reviewer Responses:

Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: Reject with the possibility to re-submit – The paper is rejected but authors are encouraged to restructure  the paper, add new results, and resubmit for new consideration.

Comments:
This paper presents novel power transfer system for**. The idea of the system is very interesting, but the presentation and technical inspection is very poor.

1.Please explain why the contactless system should be employed for ocean buoy's sensor. Although the authors write the reason a little bit in “conclusion”, the reason is the most important motivation for this research and therefore should be written in “introduction” in detail.

2. Does the mooring cable interconnect between sensor and buoy? When Sensor has free position, is the length of the cable variable? If so, How? The authors should analyze the inductance Lm when the cable is variable.

3. According to Fig.2, the secondary of the upper coupler is also contactless. Why?

4. The authors do not consider the loop area of the electrical wire including the mooring cable. The inductance Ls and Lm depend on the area. In paricular, the experimental setup shown in Fig.11 indicates that the authors do absolutely not consider the loop area.
Furthermore, the authors indentify the inductances of upper coupler and lower coupler and mooring cable. But, practically, it is impossible because of influence of the loop area .

5. Please consider influence of sea water, which I think that influences the parameters such as inductances and equivalent resistance, and resulting performance.

6.The authors write that the symbol Up is DC power voltage. Is it right? I see that Up is ac voltage according to (2).

Additional Questions:
Quality of Presentation (5 being the highest; 0 being the lowest):

Clear, concise, effective presentation: 1

Effective illustrations and tables: 3

Correct English language: 3

Useful references to past work: 3

Technical Presentation/Accuracy (5 being the highest; 0 being the lowest):

Valuable for practicing engineers or researchers: 1

Technically and mathematically accurate: 0

Well supported with analysis and experimental evidence: 1

Rich in engineering judgement and insight: 1

Interesting to readers, stimulates new ideas: 5

On a scale of 1 to 10, please rate the quality of the research contribution or the technical impact in this paper: 5 Some research contribution or technical impact

Explain in detail the reasons for the research contribution or technical impact score. What is the new contribution
of this paper? Why is it important (or not) to existing knowledge? Please recognize that effective review or tutorial
papers can provide a strong contribution even with limited new content.: This paper presents novel power transfer system for ocean buoy's underwater sensor. The idea of the system is very interesting, but the presentation and technical inspection is very poor. Please refer to the comment to the authors, in detail.

Reviewer: 2

Recommendation: Reject with the possibility to re-submit – The paper is rejected but authors are encouraged to restructure  the paper, add new results, and resubmit for new consideration.

Comments:
The topic is very interesting and has lots of potential for investigation of wireless power transfer solutions. However, there are several aspects of the work that are not clear or investigated in sufficient depth. Suggestions for improvement are as listed below:

Explain what is meant by CTD in the introduction.
Keep consistent notation throughout the paper; e.g. Ui vs. Up, etc.
It is unclear how the inductance Ls splits between Ls1, Ls2 and Lm; please clarify which inductance values relate to windings on the core and which to the mooring cable. Please clarify.
This system is not strictly wireless power transfer in the usual sense, in that the coupled windings are would around a magnetic core like a traditional transformer. Reconsider the description of the system as a wireless power transfer system.
If magnetic cores are used, their properties and dimensions and loss effects need to be discussed as it is likely they are significant, and the choice of magnetic material will limit the range of operating voltages and frequencies.
It is unclear about turns ratio of the system; is it true that the turns ratio of the upper and lower coupler coils is the same and therefore the overall system gain is 1?
Results off Fig 4 and 5 are expected; i.e. better performance for higher coupling. These and all following results in this section need some more generalised analysis so that deign guidelines can be deduced for other similar systems.
All parameters are not entirely independent; e.g. resistance and inductance of coils will be related. Therefore, reconsider which parameters are truly independent.
Provide some explanation for the maximum power and efficiency points - is it related to impedance matching, e.g.?
Discussion of the effect of frequency is not clear, especially when related to equation (15) which does not include frequency explicitly. High frequency distortion is more likely due to non-linear magnetic material properties.
Plots of system performance versus frequency would look clearer if frequency were plotted on a log scale.
Explain how simulations used to compare with computations in Fig. 8 are carried out; what software was used; include details of the simulation model.

Additional Questions:
Quality of Presentation (5 being the highest; 0 being the lowest):

Clear, concise, effective presentation: 3

Effective illustrations and tables: 3

Correct English language: 3

Useful references to past work: 3

Technical Presentation/Accuracy (5 being the highest; 0 being the lowest):

Valuable for practicing engineers or researchers: 3

Technically and mathematically accurate: 3

Well supported with analysis and experimental evidence: 2

Rich in engineering judgement and insight: 2

Interesting to readers, stimulates new ideas: 4

On a scale of 1 to 10, please rate the quality of the research contribution or the technical impact in this paper: 5 Some research contribution or technical impact

Explain in detail the reasons for the research contribution or technical impact score. What is the new contribution
of this paper? Why is it important (or not) to existing knowledge? Please recognize that effective review or tutorial
papers can provide a strong contribution even with limited new content.: The paper describes a solution for powering electronic devices in underwater applications, which has particular challenges that are very interesting. However, the level of analysis presented is insufficient, focussing only on the specific parameters of the test system rather than providing an explanation for the limitations of such systems in general.

EIC : Attached are some hints to help authors improve their papers.

回复此楼