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#heyu将赠送您 200 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

#heyu

铁杆木虫 (职业作家)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 13171.2
红花: 6
帖子: 3534
在线: 318小时
虫号: 3537202
注册: 2014-11-14
性别: GG
专业: 电力电子学

[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