24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者真空电子将赠送您 90 个金币

真空电子

木虫 (正式写手)

应助: 16 (小学生)
金币: 1025.3
散金: 628
红花: 20
帖子: 662
在线: 503.8小时
虫号: 1668676
注册: 2012-03-06
性别: GG
专业: 同步辐射技术及其应用

[求助] IEEE Trans MTT审稿意见1个接收2个小修1个拒稿，求高人分析已有1人参与

各位高人，我最近试着投了一篇IEEE Trans MTT, 返回了四个审稿意见，一个直接接受，两个小修，一个拒稿，求高人分析以下几点：

（1）编辑上来直接说：‘The reviewer(s) have recommended publication, but also suggest some revisions to your manuscript.’ ，但是又给出了拒稿那位的审稿意见，投稿系统里面显示的是major revision, 我实在是体会不出编辑的心意，求各位大神分析？
（2）如果按照拒稿那位的审稿意见修改，需要增加测试，论文改动较大，这样会不会影响直接接受和小修那三个审稿人的决定？
（3）拒稿那位的审稿意见主要是觉得没有创新性，只是简单的重复，写了很长一段的批评。同时我这边已经准备好很多反驳他的理由。请问在回复审稿意见的时候，我能礼貌的逐条进行批驳吗？同时我会尽量满足他要求的修改部分。

贴出主要审稿意见如下：
Dear Mr. Huang:

Manuscript ID ***** entitled "*****" which you submitted to the Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, has been reviewed.  The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

The reviewer(s) have recommended publication, but also suggest some revisions to your manuscript.  Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript.

Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to the Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, your revised manuscript should be submitted by 01-Jun-2016.  If it is not possible for you to submit your revision by this date, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques and I look forward to receiving your revision.

Sincerely,

Associate Editor

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: Accept

Comments:
This is a very good paper and I recommend its publication with no comments.

Reviewer: 2

Recommendation: Minor Revision

Comments:
Please, keep in mind possible problems with accuracy of manufacturing.

The reference list needs minor correction. In particular, results of *** must be given more in detail (for example, 给出一篇参考文献).

Reviewer: 3

Recommendation: Reject

Comments:
The paper investigated ***. The system works at ***. However, the design of the ***, which is very typical setup of ***. The paper does not contain a novelty in the system nor does not present the experimental implementation of the ***. The *** structure is also one of the *** shapes that are reported elsewhere. The *** is very much applicable only for *** mode. But what if the operating modes are changed to much higher modes so that the *** is no longer a good solution due to ***? Also, what if the operating power is higher than ***? Does the *** shape work as well considering the *** threshold? If not, what shape of *** is optimum for a different power range? Can the authors suggest more generic approach for the power limit in using the *** and the ***? In this sense, I do not see any novelty or major improvement in the proposed system. The paper may be more suitable in the Review of Scientific Instruments or other instrumentation journals considering the spirit of the manuscript. In order to be considered for publication, the authors should elaborately state the new idea that was tried in the study not a description of “implementation” of already known knowledge. Also, the authors are encouraged to suggest to present their work more generic approach as commented earlier.
A few typos and questions found in the study are:

1) Sentences with equations should be ended with periods. Check Line 23 and 33 in Page 2 and Line 49 in Page 3.
2) What conductivity value was it used for simulation? Especially, the authors should mention the ***.
3) Please describe in detail about the fabrication of the ***. Can the *** be estimated? How was the *** done?

Reviewer: 4

Recommendation: Minor Revision

Comments:
It is interesting to ***. However, the manuscript needs minor, but, mandatory revisions. Please find my comments for improvements of the paper:

(1) In the abstract, it could result in confusion with the words “***” and “***”. The better is to instead of “***” with “***” (also in the following sections).

(2) Page 2, column 1, line 36~38. The following publications should also be referred as the improved versions of the ***:

给出了三篇文章

(3) Page 2, column 2, line 42 (just below the equation (6)): “***”  should read “***”.

(4) Page 2, column 2, lines 44~48: “***”. It is better to say: “***.”

(5) Page 4, column 1, lines 1~3: “***“ should read “***”

(6) Page 4, column 1, lines 29~30: “***” should read “***”

(7) In Fig.4 (Page 4, column 1), the *** seems to be wrong.

回复此楼