24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

zzzzzz54

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 85.8
散金: 10
帖子: 35
在线: 10.4小时
虫号: 27369501
注册: 2021-09-23
专业: 计算机网络

[交流] spl是否重投，一个审稿人给了r，另一个aq，ae给了r 已有3人参与

The reviewing process of your paper submitted to the IEEE Signal Processing Letters is now completed.  Comments from the reviewers are attached at the end of this email. (** See note below about attachments).

Based on the attached set of reviews, I regret to inform you that I have to decide to REJECT the  paper for publication.

In summary, as pointed out by the reviewers the main drawback of this work concerns the novelty of the proposal that is not sufficiently convincing to warrant IEEE Signal Processing Letters publication. Furthermore, the paper contribution was also considered not technically detailed or clearly described in the manuscript. The evaluation experiments are not clear reported or convincing. The comparison with recent competitive solutions is considered missing in the proposal. This fact also avoids a plain examination of the contribution. Additional issues concerning the proposal description are detailed highlighted by the reviewers.

Considering that the decision process for the IEEE Signal Processing Letters is BINARY (papers that need major revisions are not accepted), I regret that I cannot offer you a more positive decision at this point because we do appreciate your interest in publishing in the IEEE Signal Processing Letters.

Resubmission of Previously Rejected Manuscripts:  Technically, you cannot resubmit a REJECTED manuscript, as it is a REJECTED and CLOSED paper.  You would therefore need to submit it as a new manuscript obtaining a new manuscript ID #. When you submit, begin a new submission and follow the submission instructions. Please include a cover letter, explaining the paper's history, previous manuscript ID #, and AE name. Please also include your "Response to Reviewers" document along with your manuscript files.

Authors of Rejected manuscripts are allowed to resubmit their manuscripts only once. Manuscripts that have been rejected twice by
Signal Processing Letters cannot be considered further for publication
in Signal Processing Letters, and authors should understand that any
encouraging reviewer or editorial comments that may accompany a second rejection should be taken as applicable to resubmission in some other venue.
If you choose to submit a new version of your manuscript, you will be asked to submit supporting documents detailing how your new version addresses all of the reviewers' comments.
Full details of the resubmission process can be found in the Signal Processing Society “Policy and Procedures Manual” at
https://signalprocessingsociety. ... d-procedures-manual

Note that resubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual
acceptance, nor that your resubmission will be subject to re-review by
the reviewers before a decision is rendered.  Also note that the
original Associate Editor who managed the original peer review process
is not guaranteed as well. Resubmissions are to be treated as brand new submissions without bias.

Also, as a general reminder for authors, before resubmitted, please be sure to read some of the IEEE material regarding author conduct:
https://journals.ieeeauthorcente ... eee-journal-author/

Specifically, regarding avoiding copyright infringement:
https://journals.ieeeauthorcente ... pon-ieee-copyright/

And the improper reuse of content:
https://journals.ieeeauthorcente ... ials/#citingsources

If you have any questions regarding the reviews, please contact the managing Associate Editor who managed the peer review of your paper.

Sincerely,
Prof. Ros?ngela Coelho
Associate Editor
coelho@ime.eb.br

Reviewer Comments:

Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: R - Reject (Paper Is Not Of Sufficient Quality Or Novelty To Be Published In This Transactions)

Comments:
Despite the forward-looking sonar image processing being a hot topic in the current underwater community, this work present several critical issues:

1) The novelty is not well-explained. The authors have to highlight better the differences concerning the current state-of-the-art.

2) Some parts of the paper are not well-explain. For example, the FLS used. The authors must provide information about the FLS images used to guarantee the research replicability.

Additional Questions:
1. Is the topic appropriate for publication in this transaction?: Yes

2. Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field?: Moderately So

Explain:

3. How would you rate the technical novelty of the paper?: Not Novel

Explain: The novelty of this work is not well-explained.

4. How would you rate the English usage?: Needs improvement

6. Rate the references: Satisfactory

Reviewer: 2

Recommendation: AQ - Publish In Minor, Required Changes

Comments:
(There are no comments. Please check to see if comments were included as a file attachment with this e-mail or as an attachment in your Author Center.)

Additional Questions:
1. Is the topic appropriate for publication in this transaction?: Yes

2. Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field?: Yes

Explain:

3. How would you rate the technical novelty of the paper?: Novel Enough for Publication

Explain: The authors improve detection performance in FLS imagery with complex gradient and low resolution by the ellipse quality evaluation.

4. How would you rate the English usage?: Satisfactory

6. Rate the references: Satisfactory

发自小木虫IOS客户端

回复此楼