24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (4505)
>文献求助 (294)
>导师招生 (258)
>论文投稿 (241)
>博后之家 (232)
>虫友互识 (161)
>硕博家园 (88)
>有机交流 (81)
>考博 (77)
>招聘信息布告栏 (49)
>学术会议 (43)
>休闲灌水 (31)
>基金申请 (21)
>找工作 (20)
>教师之家 (19)
>考研 (17)

返回列表

TaroHakase

铁虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 48.6
帖子: 12
在线: 2.8小时
虫号: 26132232

[交流] 焦虑ing，本科独立作者投了ieee access一审鼓励重投，修改后最终可能被拒吗

楼主保研需要论文，必须是sci不能有老师，现在一审给了鼓励重投，最近正在二审，很是焦虑，看了全网目前没找到ieee access鼓励重投后最终拒绝的例子。请问各位学长学姐ieee access一审给重投加reviewer以下的comments，论证最终被accept的几率有多大（关系到保研，太焦虑了555）？
Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: Reject (updates required before resubmission)

Comments:
This paper propose a method that can assess the impact of close and sub-close contacts on risk levels across the community. The research topic has practical significance and is closely related to the current epidemic prevention and control. The research results can provide a basis for making public policy and predicting the state of disease transmission.However, several details need attention.

1.line45,page1 the abbreviated phrase SIR, SEIR that appears for the first time, please give the specific meanings.
2. The first reference is cited only in the fifth paragraph, and it is recommended that the previous description also cite suitable reference.
3. Give more explanation to equation (2).
4. Lines 40 and 46 on page 3, there is no formula number in parentheses.
5. The content of the conclusion is relatively short. It is recommended to summarize the research content and focus on the research findings. It is suggested to give the shortcomings of this paper and the prospect of future research.
The recommendation is to resubmit the paper after revision.

Additional Questions:
1) Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Yes

2) Is the paper technically sound?: Yes

3) Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Yes

4) Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Yes

5) Are there references that are not appropriate for the topic being discussed?: No

5a) If yes, then please indicate which references should be removed.:

Reviewer: 2

Recommendation: Reject (updates required before resubmission)

Comments:
Unfortunately, the content of the article and the literature used do not provide an answer to how the results of the study will help improve public policy to combat the Pandemic.
references 1 and 10 have been duplicated.
Part of reference 9 is attributed to the record of reference 10..
There are no references to sources 16, 17 and 18

Additional Questions:
1) Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: The author of the article tries to substantiate more accurate mathematical methods for predicting the spread of viral infections in order to increase the effectiveness of public policy in combating the Pandemic.

2) Is the paper technically sound?: The article is interdisciplinary.
The validity of court decisions is based on 17 sources and confirmed by one table and six figures.

3) Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Unfortunately, the content of the article and the literature used do not provide an answer to how the results of the study will help improve public policy to combat the Pandemic.

4) Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: The list of sources includes 18 titles, 6 of which have been published in the last five years (33,3%).
This per cent, in our opinion, would be enough to reveal the issues raised in the study. However, part of reference 9 is attributed to the record of reference 10..
There are no references to sources 16, 17 and 18

5) Are there references that are not appropriate for the topic being discussed?: Yes

5a) If yes, then please indicate which references should be removed.: references 1 and 10 have been duplicated.

回复此楼