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zhangxp_789将赠送您 5 个金币

zhangxp_789

新虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 2451.1
散金: 15
帖子: 238
在线: 73.7小时
虫号: 997331
注册: 2010-04-15
专业: 通信理论与系统

[求助] 吐血啊，论文大修过后的审稿意见，请大家看一下是否有再修改后投过去的必要，谢谢。已有1人参与

由于要毕业，等这篇论文。

但大修后审稿反馈意见，请大家看一下是否还要继续修改再投过去啊，吐血啊。

Thank you very much for submitting manuscript xxx to the IEEE xxx as a Regular paper submission.

The review process of your manuscript referenced above has been completed. Much to my regret, I have to inform you that in the opinion of the reviewers and Associate Editor in charge, the submitted manuscript is not suitable for publication in the IEEE xxx.

You are of course encouraged to re-submit your manuscript as a new paper including accurate data and clear links with IES scopes. For your reference, the comments of the reviewers are enclosed.

Please upload only a single PDF file, and ensure that none of the authors or their affiliations can be identified through any manner in the manuscript, e.g. title, acknowledgement, no biographies, no cover materials, etc. If identities or affiliations can be determined from the manuscript, then the submission is automatically declined (rejected).

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author
The paper has been improved compared to the first submission. However, in my opinion the improvement is minor, rather than major.
The quality of the text has been improved, although another check is required. Concerning the improvement of the related work, the authors indeed added 6 new references dealing with the energy consumption in wireless networks, although they neither focus on sensing applications nor on vehicular scenarios.
In any case, the main problem that was raised in the first review was a not sufficient demonstration of the value of the proposed algorithm in the results section; this aspect has been only slightly improved. Results are more shown as examples than as real results. They are, in fact, still confined to single experiments. In addition, the enhancements appear small compared to a very basic benchmark (with no energy saving at all). Overall, the paper does not fully convince the reader about the impact of the proposal.

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author
It seems that most of the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers have been addressed by the authors. However, I would like to insist that it is not evident for this reviewer which is the added value provided by the prototype described in the paper compared to existing commercial solutions used for example in fleet management systems. Such solutions already exhibit energy optimization techniques or M2M communications supported by 2,5G and 3G infrastructures.

Reviewer: 3

Comments to the Author
After reading the paper and the attached letter clarifying the updates. The paper is in a good status for publication and most of the reviewers comments have been addressed.@Monash2011

回复此楼