24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者ycyinc将赠送您 20 个金币

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

ycyinc

铁虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 50.7
散金: 50
帖子: 36
在线: 22.6小时
虫号: 13820628
注册: 2019-01-14
专业: 计算机应用技术

[求助] 求分析

一审意见如下，已返回，时间挺久了，接收可能性大吗？
Reviewers have now commented on your paper.  You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript.  If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to review a revision.

For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below.

If you decide to revise the work, please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript.

Your revision is due by Jan 19, 2020.

Reviewers' comments:

The problem addressed is interesting. But its contribution is undeterminable due to the fact that the medical problem and procedure are very abstract. This makes readers unable to clearly follow the explanations and therefore. However, a clearer problem description with a scenario and clinical procedure described preferably is needed to guide the reader in developments of this paper.

Reviewer #1:
The article needs some minor revisions.
1. Re-check typos are necessary. For example, some spaces miss on session 2, 3.4, and 5.4. Equation (6), got the extra space at rand(  ).
2. Session 5.4 and 5.5 mentioned some features are removed by PSO to have better performances. However, the article did not specified the threshold for removing.

Reviewer #2:  the manuscript is not well organized and the following lists some serious mistakes:
(1) There are two RESULTS AND DISCUSSION sections.
(2) Authors describe "In [21], multi SMV was...". However, the method applied in [21] should be multi SVMs.
(3) The reference section needs to be formatted correctly in consistence.

审稿.png

回复此楼