| 查看: 3345 | 回复: 3 | ||
| 【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者godblessme11将赠送您 15 个金币 | ||
godblessme11新虫 (小有名气)
|
[求助]
ieee signal processing letters 要不要重投？
|
|
|
SPL,倒霉分了韩国的AE，然后给了拒稿，只有一个审稿人，感觉英文还是有问题，表述不清楚，很多地方审稿人完全没看懂，想问问 各位虫友重投还有没有戏？还是 转投其他。。。。。。。。。。。。。 decision to REJECT - SPL-XXX Body: 03-May-2017 Dr. xx Dear xx, The reviewing process of your paper submitted to the IEEE Signal Processing Letters is now completed. Comments from the reviewers are attached at the end of this email. (** See note below about attachments). Based on the attached set of reviews, I regret to inform you that I have to decide to REJECT the paper for publication. In summary, the reviewer pointed out that manuscript is poorly written and many claims not well justified. In addition, based on my own reading, I have a couple of major issues. First the complexity order of FFT is not taken into account, which is O(N log N). It is downplayed in Sec. IV saying "Except for FFT, the complexity is only O(N)" but the FFT cannot be neglected as this is an integral part of the algorithm. Second, it seems there is no guarantee that the initial coarse estimate is good enough with residuals in [-0.5,0.5]（这一点完全不对，其他很多论文都有用此方法）. A minor issue is that the numerical results do not show the phase estimation performance; only the freq. estimation is assessed. Considering that the decision process for the IEEE Signal Processing Letters is BINARY (papers that need major revisions are not accepted), I regret that I cannot offer you a more positive decision at this point because we do appreciate your interest in publishing in the IEEE Signal Processing Letters. Resubmission of Previously Rejected Manuscripts: Technically, you cannot resubmit a REJECTED manuscript, as it is a REJECTED and CLOSED paper. You would therefore need to submit it as a new manuscript obtaining a new manuscript ID #, following the guidelines in the Author Center (where you would submit your paper to the system) under "RE-SUBMISSION OF A REJECTED MANUSCRIPT" Authors of Rejected manuscripts are allowed to resubmit their manuscripts only once. Manuscripts that have been rejected twice by Signal Processing Letters cannot be considered further for publication in Signal Processing Letters, and authors should understand that any encouraging reviewer or editorial comments that may accompany a second rejection should be taken as applicable to resubmission in some other venue. If you choose to submit a new version of your manuscript, you will be asked to submit supporting documents detailing how your new version addresses all of the reviewers' comments. Full details of the resubmission process can be found in the Signal Processing Society “Policy and Procedures Manual” at https://signalprocessingsociety.org/volunteers/policy-and-procedures-manual Note that resubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, nor that your resubmission will be subject to re-review by the reviewers before a decision is rendered. Also note that the original Associate Editor who managed the original peer review process is not guaranteed as well. Resubmissions are to be treated as brand new submissions without bias. Sincerely, Dr. Seung-Jun Kim Associate Editor sjkim@umbc.edu * If you have any questions regarding the reviews, please contact the managing Associate Editor who managed the peer review of your paper. Reviewer Comments: Reviewer: 1 Recommendation: R - Reject (Paper Is Not Of Sufficient Quality Or Novelty To Be Published In This Transactions) Comments: This article describes a method for XXX and it claims a better estimation performance than the existing methods in the low SNR situation. The paper might potentially be publishable but it is poorly written and is far below the standard of this journal. In addition, their method is not properly justified. I would suggest that the authors should do a major revision and do a fresh re-submission. Some of the major issues are listed below. 1. The technical description is poor, which made the readers difficult to read the authors’ idea and therefore, hard to make a judgement on their contribution. 1) For example, The FFT method should be expressed in equations rather than by a function (in the beginning of section II). The latter usually depends on the implementation technique. In my view, the authors implicitly assume that the readers know what they are doing! 2) Many statements are not properly justified. In particular, the equations related to previous work are not given, e.g., the definition of CRB in this problem. 3) It is not clear to me what the contribution of this letter is. Authors fail to show technically why their approach is better than the existing approach. Simulation results shown in Fig. 1 are not convinced. The readers deserve an analytical explanation. 4) Using appendix is a bad idea for letters. 2. I believe that the poor English is contributing to the bad technical writing among other factors. Additional Questions: 1. Is the topic appropriate for publication in this transaction?: Yes 2. Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field?: Yes Explain: 3. How would you rate the technical novelty of the paper?: Somewhat Novel 4. How would you rate the English usage? : Poor 6. Rate the references: Satisfactory |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
只有每年这种时候来逛逛小木虫
已经有24人回复
-
估计是周四
已经有3人回复
-
基金啊基金
已经有3人回复
-
科研孤儿太难了
已经有15人回复
-
让我中一个面上吧！
已经有10人回复
-
言之凿凿，明天官网会通知放榜？
已经有17人回复
-
时间戳又变了
已经有17人回复
-
今天系统多次维护，明天很可能放榜！
已经有11人回复
-
时间戳变了，能看出什么问题？
已经有23人回复
-
放榜前的不淡定
已经有12人回复
2楼2017-05-04 13:09:17
3楼2022-05-28 02:10:53
|
本帖内容被屏蔽 |
4楼2022-05-28 14:03:05
