24小时热门版块排行榜    

CyRhmU.jpeg
南方科技大学公共卫生及应急管理学院2025级博士研究生招生报考通知
查看: 2057  |  回复: 5
【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题,作者#heyu将赠送您 200 个金币

#heyu

铁杆木虫 (职业作家)

[求助] TPEL审稿意见回复已有3人参与

最近投了IEEE TPEL(Transactions on power electronics),五个审稿人,两个接受,一个大修,一个修改,一个拒稿重投,主编给了conditionally recommended publication。其他的回复都还好,有一个审稿人给了侧重的是数学问题而不是工程问题,做的是空间矢量调制,回复比较困难(尤其是第6个问题),请各位前辈提出宝贵的建议,谢谢!

Recommendation: Revision – The paper is not accepted. Reviewer recommends authors be given one chance to respond to reviewers’ comments in 6 weeks or less.

Comments:
1 - Paper is solid in terms of math modeling.
2 - It is not clear to me if the problem could be analyzed in a more simple way. While reading the paper, it looked to me that the subject was more related to the math problem than to the engineering problem o f voltage fluctuation.
3 - Vienna rectifier is a well-known circuit, from which there are several improvements and analisys methods. However, there has been not so much real contribution to the problems faced in Vienna Rectifier, as most literature deal with narrow subjects such as the one described in this paper.
4 - The paper has good quality, but the subject is very narrow. Should focus on the engineering aspects instead of the mathematical problem. Consider explaining the importance of the subject;
5 - Also, consider explaining clearly which problem this technique solves, because at the end of the paper it was not clear which improvement was made.
(主要是一种新的分析方法,实验做的可能不够完善)
6 - There is little engineering judgement and insight. The results shown are not exclusive to the present subject.
(第六个问题最疑惑,工程判断力和洞察力是指什么?)


Additional Questions:
Quality of Presentation (5 being the highest; 0 being the lowest):

Clear, concise, effective presentation: 4

Effective illustrations and tables: 5

Correct English language: 4

Useful references to past work: 4

Technical Presentation/Accuracy (5 being the highest; 0 being the lowest):

Valuable for practicing engineers or researchers: 3

Technically and mathematically accurate: 4

Well supported with analysis and experimental evidence: 4

Rich in engineering judgement and insight: 2

Interesting to readers, stimulates new ideas: 3

On a scale of 1 to 10, please rate the quality of the research contribution or the technical impact in this paper:
3
Incremental addition to existing knowledge or practice and of limited importance

Explain in detail the reasons for the research contribution or technical impact score. What is the new contribution
of this paper? Why is it important (or not) to existing knowledge? Please recognize that effective review or tutorial
papers can provide a strong contribution even with limited new content.: The subject is a method to evaluate a fluctuation caused due to the nature of Vienna Rectifier. This subject has been discussed in pther papers.
回复此楼
NoworNever!
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
a
2楼2020-09-24 21:32:00
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

bobvan

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
不是很清楚你的专业的东西,但你可以引用别的审稿人的意见来佐证你的观点和反驳这个审稿人的意见。另外,可以多找些发表的文章,特别是近期高大上期刊的文章,找找其它的证据等
3楼2020-09-25 02:35:08
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

dzf112233

银虫 (小有名气)

【答案】应助回帖

conditionally recommended publication是小修吗?楼主情况咋样了,这种应该很好中吧?最近收到了Revision 6 weeks,比楼主结果更糟QAQ
4楼2020-10-04 10:46:25
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

armstronglet

至尊木虫 (职业作家)

【答案】应助回帖

这个审稿人的问题是不怎么好回答。你的方法偏重数学没有问题,最重要的是采用你的方法,与已有的方法,在实际应用中有什么优势?是运行快速/对硬件要求低了,还是在变换器的某些特性上变好了,或者是应用范围变广了?
有经典的论文分析SPWM和SVPWM的关系的,也是数学分析,但只要揭示了调制方法中的本质,一样也是好文章。关键是你的文章要清晰地阐明你的方法的优点,用一句简单地话就能概括起来。
5楼2020-10-04 20:34:23
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

Vilinfly

新虫 (初入文坛)

最后一个问题应该是说贡献较低,你需要详细阐述本文的创新性和方法的应用,认真回答即可,大不了再进行二审

发自小木虫IOS客户端
6楼2021-02-13 08:32:56
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 #heyu 的主题更新
不应助 确定回帖应助 (注意:应助才可能被奖励,但不允许灌水,必须填写15个字符以上)
信息提示
请填处理意见