昨天被Information Sciences一审后拒稿了，第一次投论文，心情很低落，不知道怎么做了 - 论文投稿 - 交流

版块导航: 正在加载中...

登录注册

应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

雨晴妈妈

新虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 188.2
帖子: 53
在线: 13.7小时
虫号: 7538539

已领完

昨天被Information Sciences一审后拒稿了，第一次投论文，心情很低落，不知道怎么做了: 领取红包 (小木虫手机app专属红包)

扫一扫，下载小木虫客户端

Dear Mr. zuo,

We have received the decision on your paper.

For your guidance, please find below the Editor's and the reviewers' comments.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Editor in Chief

given the detailed comments of the reviewers and the recommendation of the Associate Editor, it is my sad duty to inform you that the paper cannot be accepted for publication.

Thank you for your interest in INFORMATION SCIENCES.

Associate Editor: The reviewers have commented on your paper. Based on the comments, this paper has to be greatly improved in several aspects, including providing appropriate references, justifying how and why the study is done, etc. As a result, this paper is unable to be considered for publication as its present form. Reviewers' comments are appended below for your reference.

Reviewer #2: The authors are referring to parts of a figure as an example below, but could be modified, therefore, confused with the quote of the figure.
Example:
"Similarly, a figure '0.05108'"
"is their sum assigned a gure '-1'."
"is mass of the three coeficients assigned a figure '1'."

Throughout the paper the equations were not
numerically identified;

Item 5 - Include an introduction between items 5 and 5.1;

Some Figures could be better explained, example: Figure 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 e 6.

Some figures are causing page break before text ends.

The paper shows important results with the proposed technique, but the text is very tiring and needs to be improved.

Reviewer #3: The paper attempts to show a novel way to create multi-crossover coefficients in a more efficient way. The article is mostly well written although still have some serious problems in grammar in places (as if some sections were not proof read).

The main concern with this paper is the support presented by the authors, specially concerning to the algorithms used for the performance test. Algorithms 1, 2 and 3 seem by observation very inefficient as they allow to accumulate potential out-of bound errors randomly and do not guarantee termination in a defined time. Even their "remedy" algorithm exhibits the same behaviour so the efficiency gain in this aspect is inexistent. Moreover, the references in which all their test rely most heavily ([22]-[29]) cannot be found in the public domain, and some of them are internal publications of their institution ([22 & [27]). For this reason none of their results comparisons can be verified, and moreover, seems a quite limited circle of work, certainly not at an international level.

Other reference are cited wrongly/incomplete (.e.g. [33])

For this reason, the work as it is is not founded in adequate research review or benchmarking relative to the international state of the art and the authors seem to be using suitable published research only for examples. And using only obscure internal work as the critical base for their validation. The algorithms alone do not show value as these seem quite inefficient in nature.

The paper is in no shape to be published at all. It needs to be reworked from the root background research. The algorithms need to be elaborated and analysed appropriately from the computing point of view, and the experiments reworked using benchmark work that can be found by the standard scholar routes (google scholar, scopus, etc...)

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

I regret to inform you that, in view of the comments made, our Editor-in-Chief, Professsor Witold Pedrycz, has decided that we are unable to publish your work in Information Sciences.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

发自小木虫Android客户端

回复此楼