| 查看: 17380 | 回复: 27 | |||
[交流]
ieee access 论文投稿被拒了，大家看看重投中的概率大吗 已有16人参与
|
|||
|
我是6月19号投的，7月12号给分配的AE，23号收到的结果 两个都是reject，副编辑给了推荐重投。第一个审稿人还行，拒稿但是推荐重投。第二个不让重投的嘛，估计连背景和目标都没看，只说我用的蚁群肯定没创新就直接拒了，但是又给了几个看起来不怎么相关的参考文献让引用并对比。这几个参考文献还有一篇17年的一区，也是蚁群算法。。纳闷要不要申请换个审稿人 Reviewer: 1 Recommendation: Reject (update and resubmit encouraged) Comments: In this paper author has focused on the problem of VM placement problem for storage device.Where through the proposed solution of Multi objective Ant Colony System author(s) goal is to find an optimum solution which can maximize the revenue and minimize the power consumption. Although the paper is written quite well but there are so many problem which needs to be revised are as follows: -The authors do not define their problem space clearly. -There is also a substantial lack of an evaluation of their proposal as the given results are not satisfactory. -Their solution is stated without logical intuition as to what exactly they intend to achieve. -Can yon discuss the complexity of the system/method/algorithm/model? -Also there is strong discussion needed to prove it as optimum solution with minimum power consumption and maximum revenue of communications. -Conclusion section should be validated by the analysis of result and also should be -compared with other existing methods by incorporating the facts, which are missing. Additional Questions: Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Yes but in some area it needs revision Is the paper technically sound?: yes Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: yes Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: yes Reviewer: 2 Recommendation: Reject (do not encourage resubmit) Comments: The application of ACO to the problem of VM placement is not novel. Several key references of the existing literature, such as https://www.sciencedirect.com/sc ... i/S2215098616304232, https://www.sciencedirect.com/sc ... i/S0022000013000627, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-13461-1_16, are missing. The authors should encompass them in their analysis and motivate why they are novel with respect to them. I see that only an additional constraint, on the traffic intensity, is added, which is not a proof of novelty in my opinion. Additional Questions: Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: I do not see novelty in such a work as ACO has been exhaustivelly used to deal with the problem of Virtual Machine placement. Is the paper technically sound?: Yes Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Yes Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: No, key references to the similar related works are not available. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
论文终于录用啦！满足毕业条件了
已经有16人回复
-
求个博导看看
已经有19人回复
-
投稿Elsevier的杂志（返修），总是在选择OA和subscription界面被踢皮球
已经有8人回复
henryliu911
铁杆木虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 19 (小学生)
- 金币: 6895.7
- 散金: 100
- 红花: 9
- 帖子: 181
- 在线: 335.9小时
- 虫号: 1721682
- 注册: 2012-03-28
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 信息处理方法与技术
★ ★ ★ ★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
paperhunter: 金币+3, 鼓励交流 2018-09-07 23:17:54
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
paperhunter: 金币+3, 鼓励交流 2018-09-07 23:17:54
|
我是IEEE Access审稿人，这个期刊reject and resubmit就相当于大修，希望还是挺大的。 建议你逐条回复审稿意见并且重投回去，人家说你没创新点，你就在文章和审稿意见回复里更加清楚地一条一条列出来你的创新点在哪里。并且，一定要引用那几篇审稿人提到的参考文献。 通常情况下，审稿人提到某几篇文献让你引用并且比较，里头八成有他自己的论文。他这样做是为了增加自己文章的引用量。“他引次数”这个指标在全世界很多大学里，都是一个重要的考核指标。因此，想让文章被accept，不管是不是跟你的文章有关，他让你引，你乖乖引上就对了。是不是真的对比不重要，如果不想对比的话，就在回复里说明原因（时间有限，算法code拿不到，不好重复），并且在文章合适的地方提几句那几篇文章在做啥，给个正面评价。 虽然这样的事情上不了台面，但是确实是论文投稿中长期存在的潜规则。 |
5楼2018-07-25 00:07:38
9楼2018-07-25 09:35:02
19楼2018-09-06 09:07:44
4楼2018-07-24 23:21:25
6楼2018-07-25 07:33:08
7楼2018-07-25 08:12:36
10楼2018-07-28 16:49:21
jjyifan
新虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1929.7
- 散金: 192
- 红花: 5
- 帖子: 673
- 在线: 30小时
- 虫号: 2909378
- 注册: 2014-01-02
- 专业: 计算机软件
2楼2018-07-24 18:22:19
3楼2018-07-24 20:30:38
8楼2018-07-25 08:13:26