24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者翰林LEO将赠送您 46 个金币

翰林LEO

铜虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 1270
红花: 1
帖子: 57
在线: 62.3小时
虫号: 3059547
注册: 2014-03-16
专业: 电磁场与波

[求助] TMTT一审“Reject and resubmit”,请大家帮忙看看审稿意见，修改重投有戏吗已有2人参与

第一次投，没经验，历时近7个月，一审结果终于回来了，希望大家帮忙看看审稿意见，还有必要修改重投吗？觉得第一个审稿人的意见比较尖锐唉

********************以下为审稿意见************************
Dear Mr. ****:

Manuscript ID TMTT-2015-12-1588 entitled "Analysis and Design of Analog Predistortion Linearizer for Travelling Wave Tube Amplifier" which you submitted to the Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, has been reviewed. Unfortunately it is not acceptable for publication. The paper, however, may be valuable if properly revised. Therefore, I invite you to revise and resubmit the paper for consideration in future regular issues. The comments from the reviewers and the Guest Editors are included at the bottom of this letter.

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

Once you have revised your manuscript, please follow the Revised/Resubmitted Manuscript Checklist (https://www.mtt.org/author-information-transactions) to prepare all the required documents and follow the instructions to submit them.

Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to the Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, your resubmission should be completed in three months. If it is not possible for you to resubmit within THREE MONTHS, you should contact the Editor.

I look forward to a resubmission. I also take this opportunity to thank the reviewers for their timely and thoughtful comments, and the Guest Editors of APMC2015 for handling the review.

Sincerely,
Prof. Jenshan Lin
Editor-in-Chief, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques
jenshan@ieee.org

Guest Editors
Comments to the Author:
This paper is interesting, however, two reviewers pointed out the important issues of this paper including lack of novelty compared to numerous previous publications in this area. The authors should provide more original contents and state-of-the-art measurement results to convince the reviewers. Please also carefully address all the other comments raised by the reviewers.

Reviewers' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1

Specific and Thorough Comments to the Author
You need to show what is superior about your linearizer design in comparison to the numerous other circuits that have been presented over the years.

Independent control of predistortor gain and phase change with power level is not new. [It should be noted that even when predistortor gain and phase are independent, the phase of the linearized amplifier depends on the linearizer's gain characteristics. Change of the linearizer's gain transfer, changes the optimum phase transfer response].

You need to show it has significantly wider percentage bandwidth than other designs, or some other unique meaningful parameter.

You show 2-tone C/I3 performance at only one frequency. Worse, you do not show what happens to higher order IM terms. When linearizers are optimized, very often the 5th order terms will be larger than 3rd terms at certain output power backoffs. You need to show your linearizer suppresses these terms.

In your introduction, you reference digital modulations as WCDMA and OFDM, but you do not show performance with these mods. What about many carriers, NPR and other wide instantaneous bandwidth signals? Have you considered sensitivity memory effects?

Reviewer: 2

Specific and Thorough Comments to the Author
It is a very nice approach and the paper is reasonably well written, but the additional content beyond the conference paper is limited. For a transactions paper, more contents would be required. I have some comments below:

1. Page 2, Section II, avoid using bullets points.

2. Vout in Equation (1) is a composite complex signal, but not an RF signal. Vout should be Real Part of the left hand of (1). The same is applied to Vin.

3. You may need to give some explanations about equations (2) and (3). In other words, how do you obtain these two equations.

4. Equation (6) seems wrong.

5. Since there are many tuning factors need to be decided to obtain the best performance, it would be nice to give a clear instruction in the end of Section III to outline the calibration procedures, e.g, step 1, 2, 3 …

6. It would be nice to test with modulated signals.

7. English writing should be further improved.

Reviewer: 3

Specific and Thorough Comments to the Author
This APMC extended paper analyzed analog predistortion for TWTA. The draft is in a good shape, however, the contents would be more helpful to the MTT audiences if the following comments/suggestions are properly addressed.

1) English needs to be improved, some sentences don’t even have a verb, for example, in the introduction section, line 40 “The increasing use of …, causing …”, please make extra effort to ensure the readability of the paper is in an excellent mode. Using plain English is fine as long as it is clear without causing any confusion.

2) In sub-section B of section III, it is quite difficult (not straightforward) for the audience to understand how to derive the equation 6, and some part is kind of misleading, for example “Equation (5) can also be written as … ”, actually, the first line of equation (6) is the same as equation (3), so I would rephrase to “Equation (3) can also be written as …”.

3) Moreover, regarding equation (6), it will be helpful to add the relationship of arctan and arcsin (arctanX = arcsin(X/(X^2+1)^(1/2)) either in a form of extra equation or at the end of the paper, and mention the assumption (phase shift of the linear branch is 0) again. Otherwise it is quite difficult to understand where equation (6) comes.

4) In order to keep consistency and have reasonable comparison between simulation and measurement, it will useful to keep the test resolution (test steps) same, so that it verifies theory with experiments if they follow the similar curve. Particularly, in Fig.8, the resolution was one value per 1dBm, while in Fig.6 the resolution was one value per 2 dBm. I suggest re-do the simulation and re-plot the Fig. 6 with one value per 1dBm.

5) Please be specific regarding the equalizer, a circuit diagram or component part of the equalizer would be helpful to validate the statement, though the function of equalizer is pretty clear.

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

垃圾破二本职称评审标准已经有18人回复
职称评审没过，求安慰已经有53人回复
毕业后当辅导员了，天天各种学生超烦已经有5人回复
26申博自荐已经有3人回复
A期刊撤稿已经有4人回复
EST投稿状态问题已经有7人回复

1楼 2016-06-12 13:03:57

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

回帖支持 ( 显示支持度最高的前 50 名 )

crazydr

新虫 (文坛精英)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 22910.3
散金: 3089
红花: 71
帖子: 12897
在线: 318.9小时
虫号: 4013633
注册: 2015-08-09
性别: GG
专业: 影像医学与生物医学工程其

★ ★
翰林LEO(liouzhan654代发): 金币+2, 感谢交流 2016-06-12 17:17:59

reject and resubmit比大修稍微重点，还是好好按要求改改，实在不能改的地方可以说将在下一步的研究中予以研究等等，还是有希望的

发自小木虫Android客户端

赞一下(1人)

回复此楼

2楼2016-06-12 13:12:35

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

pharthology

新虫 (小有名气)

应助: 16 (小学生)
金币: 1723
红花: 6
帖子: 65
在线: 673.2小时
虫号: 2928389
注册: 2014-01-12
专业: 信号理论与信号处理

【答案】应助回帖

★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
翰林LEO(liouzhan654代发): 金币+1, 感谢交流 2016-06-12 17:18:15

需要补充的实验有点儿多啊。IM3 vs Carrier；IM5, 甚至IM7; OFDM，WCDMA；还要跟经典方法比较（个人感觉最难）。保守估计Experiments和Discussion部分要推倒重来，整体改动超过30%（不算其他语言、公式和图的修改）。

实验条件允许的话，还是争取重投吧，毕竟按照审稿意见修改后能提升不少，写出来就算不中还能投别处。

PS：TMTT二审三审可能分别3-5个月，着急毕业的话得有心里准备。祝好

赞一下(1人)

回复此楼

5楼2016-06-12 16:34:09

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖