24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者哭笑生将赠送您 78 个金币

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

哭笑生

金虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 922.3
帖子: 12
在线: 31.1小时
虫号: 904186
注册: 2009-11-16
专业: 信号理论与信号处理

[求助] 求助：关于某信号处理类期刊的审稿意见解读和回复

投稿某信号处理类期刊，有三个审稿意见，给的大修。审稿意见如下：
1.Previous publications showed the interest of these ** in detection, for similar applications. However, this paper develops more precisely the theory and highlights the interest of * in detection. The add of a ** process is interesting.
Some hypothesis have been made to perform this theory and some questions come from the choice of these:
若干问题
More precise remarks:
若干问题

2.The methodology is based on Ref. * in the manuscript, an article by *. The methodology developed in the present manuscript overlaps completely with the methodology in *. Although it does not appear that text was copied from Ref, the present article does not contain enough new research to qualify for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and is basically an application of the methods of* to the author's **. The section on the development of ** does not adequately reference **. If this manuscript is rewritten, apprpriate attribution to * should be given in this section. Additionally, the writing quality is poor with respect to both English grammar, and the communication of ideas. I therefore recommend that this article be rejected. The authors should consult guidelines on what constitutes original and significant research before resubmitting this article to any journal.
没有更多内容

3.The paper is well organized, well structured, and presents a convincing method for *. The methods and results are valuable worthy of publication. While generally well-written and quite understandable, some of the text needs a bit of attention to detail and minor corrections. Figures are clear and depict the processes and key results very well; only one was confusing.
Specific points -
若干问题

关于第二点，我确实受Ref.[]启发，并在此基础上进行了改进、拓展及应用于相近的领域。在正文中引用该文献，而且表述是The most inspiring
paper regarding * application is proposed by *。而且我觉得评审1的评价貌似就解答了评审2的质疑。我的疑惑集中于以下两点：
1.该以怎么样的方式和措辞来回复评审二，期刊会否依然让评审二复审，这个就比较麻烦，感觉他非常不友好及严厉。
2.在评审者的问题中包含一个不知道如何作答的问题，我对背景分布使用了一种模型进行估计，在文中我给出选择的理由是前人的参考文献+自己的数据拟合。评审依然追问why do you not mention other distributions？展开描述的话篇幅过多而且感觉这只是一个小部分，并非重点。类似的问题还有为什么是这个方法不是其他方法，通常只能选取典型的方法，不可能把所有的方法都列举。像此类问题该如何作答，请高人指点！

在此向广大虫友求助，希望不吝赐教，谢谢！

回复此楼