24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (3655)
>文献求助 (321)
>导师招生 (307)
>虫友互识 (295)
>休闲灌水 (97)
>论文投稿 (81)
>招聘信息布告栏 (72)
>硕博家园 (68)
>考博 (68)
>博后之家 (66)
>公派出国 (52)
>催化 (48)
>考研 (42)
>基金申请 (41)
>论文道贺祈福 (40)
>教师之家 (34)

返回列表

【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)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 39.1
散金: 292
帖子: 93
在线: 52.9小时
虫号: 2422773
注册: 2013-04-17
专业: 数理统计

[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