24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

wah0731

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 30
帖子: 6
在线: 4.3小时
虫号: 23331986

[交流] MSSP的曲折投稿经历

小弟现在直博第三年，来跟大家分享自己的第一次投稿经历。

去年在做实验的时候发现一个现在很热门的技术在一个方面有较大的缺陷，然后自己灵机一动想了个预处理办法来解决这个问题。然后就写论文，一遍一遍改了三四个月，终于投出去了（mssp）。一审两个月被拒，两位审稿人意见非常同意：该问题已经被解决，论文没有提到这些方法，缺少创新性。虽然我知道这些方法解决问题的效果很差，但审稿人的意见也很真实。因为课题组本来不是研究测量技术的，所以这个方向的进展我们没有跟上。

于是按照审稿人意见改啊改改完后转投optics and laser in engineering. 原因也很简单，之前那些我没提到的工作很多都是发表在这个期刊上的。但或许是因为疫情关系，这个期刊那段时间只有两个编辑上班，都是搞laser的，而很不幸我的工作是optics 相关。于是3天被拒：out of scope。

这之后我有点上头了，觉得有点点背。于是跟回头，跟MSSP主编发了邮件，介绍了工作内容，价值，以及上次被拒后为什么这次值得重投的机会。很幸运编辑回复我了，就简单地说请我重投。这次审稿出奇的快，一个月时间四个审稿人意见都回来了，大体上两个小修两个大修，主编给的大修。审稿意见如下：

审稿人1：It is a simple but smart methodology that could be employed in xxxxxxxx. However, some major facts should be improved before considering for publication in MSSP.

审稿人2：Although the article is well written, it still follows similar approach used discussed by others. It is only recommended for publication after major revisions with added justification of the technique.

审稿人3：In the Reviewer's opinion, the topic of the paper is of interest to the scientific community. The overall quality of the paper is good (organization, language, notation) and it is scientifically sound. On the other hand, the method itself is really simple and could be improved by adopting a dedicated acquisition strategy, as explained in the following.

审稿人4：The authors go into great detail about how the algorithm is performed and provide compelling graphics to illustrate the approach. The authors provide a very complete evaluation dataset, including xxxxxxxxxxxx, and show significant improvement both in terms of computational complexity as well as accuracy over more complex approaches to deal with the same issue. The reviewer has not seen this approach before, and therefore deems it worthy of publication with some minor modifications.

到昨天终于把四十几条comment回复完了重新投过去了。作为我的第一次投稿，虽然感觉这个过程收获很大，但真的希望编辑大人这次就接受了吧，我现在看到自己提出来的方法的名字都有点想吐了。

顺带问一下各位前辈，审稿人这个意见的话是不是希望还挺大的，以及如果第一位审稿人这次还是不满意但另外三位都同意发表的话，主编会怎么处理？

祝大家变得更强

回复此楼