24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

iamaster

铁虫 (正式写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 5506.3
散金: 470
红花: 2
帖子: 714
在线: 71.3小时
虫号: 2286196
注册: 2013-02-18
性别: GG
专业: 流体力学

[交流] ieee t 文章被拒已有1人参与

8月份投的ieee tevc，今天返回结果，直接被拒，把结果发出来给想投这个期刊的人作为参考。

第一个审稿人一句话全盘否定。第二和第四个审稿人对文章感兴趣，但是觉得文章写得还是不好，实验设计也不好。第三个审稿人觉得贡献不大，而且没有引用一些在这个领域里的文章。第四个审稿人给的意见是最多的。

这是自己的第一篇英文文章，感觉写得还是不够好，但是当时自己确实是改的想吐，想赶紧投出去。这样的结果也不意外，毕竟顶级期刊，对论文的创新性要求很高。

接下来就是根据意见继续改吧，因为要改投他刊，所以也请帮忙推荐类似的期刊。

Dear xx,

Paper ID:
Paper Title:

I have now received the recommendation from the associate editor on the aforementioned paper. Based on that recommendation, I regret to inform you that I am unable to accept your paper. You should look for other publications that your paper may be more suited to appear in as your paper is no longer under consideration by this journal.

Thank you for submitting your work to the IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author
My main reason for a straight reject is the lack of novelty. The paper is an incoherent assembly of somewhat unrelated minor contributions. The writing quality is also poor.

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author
The authors describe a novel algorithm for xx. xxxx. Another interesting aspect is the fact xxx.
Overall, the paper is quite well written with only a few typos and is quite easy to follow. I also like the idea of xx.

However, there are also a few problems with the paper. 然后是具体意见

Reviewer: 3

Comments to the Author
The authors modify xx. My main concern about the paper is its contribution. xx methods and xx have been used in conjunction with xx in the literature. There is not much that is original in the paper and therefore it is not suitable to be published in IEEE TEC. Furthermore, the computational comparisons are only made with a single method published in conference proceedings.

The current paper does not cite some of these important work and does not make comparisons with any of them.
后面是具体意见

Reviewer: 4

Comments to the Author
General discussion: This paper presents some ideas that seem to be interesting, which in my opinion constitute a promising research direction. However, the development of such ideas is still very preliminary. The authors seem to be still confused with the meaning of several components of their work, and the experimental setup is clearly unsuitable for supporting any conclusions. 后面是具体意见

回复此楼