24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

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

tzczsq

铜虫 (正式写手)

应助: 2 (幼儿园)
金币: 994.2
散金: 686
红花: 1
帖子: 341
在线: 263.2小时
虫号: 691159
注册: 2009-01-11
专业: 模式识别

[交流] 各位同仁，请看看elsevier signal processing审稿意见，能申述吗？

第一次审稿，第1个审稿人提了一个笼统上的意见，说我原理，实验方法，实验条件没有说清楚，第2，3审稿人提了一些具体的意见。所以修改时，总体上我是按照第2，3个审稿人提的意见，兼顾第1个审稿人的要求，修改了所有实验，也换了数据库。最后修改返回满足了第2，3个人的要求，结果第一个人说我前后修改的论文很不一样，怀疑实验不对，郁闷啊！而且第一个人只是一味的说我前后论文版本改动的太多，原理和技术上的意见没有！最后编辑rejected！
请大家看看，能否申述？成功概率多大？

我是做语音识别的。

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: Unfortunately, my major dissatisfaction, insufficiency of material to support the success of the proposed method, remains unchanged.

Furthermore, I would like to point out the following differences between the first and second versions of the manuscript.

1) The demonstartion of the behaviour of SLLE methiod in Fig 1 (b). These are different in the two versions.
回复：这个人第一次审稿发现我有个公式含糊不清，我后来发现原来公式写错了，后来修改纠正了。所以这两个公式输出的图形就不一样了。但是我忘了在回复意见时提到这一点，后悔啊！
2) The plots for different methods of "Vowel recognition accuracy versus reduced dimensions from TIMIT database" in Fig 3 of the second version and Figures 3 and 4 of the first version. The results are completely different in the two versions. Both the the performance scores for the invidual methods and also the performance difference between the proposed and existing methods show drastic changes.
回复：所用的数据库改了，所以实验结果，方法的性能分析自然前后不一样了。
3) "Vowel recognition accuracy versus reduced dimensions from Deterding database" (Fig. 2) of the first version have been removed from the manuscript. The results of ISOLET E-set database have been included in the second version (Fig. 5).
回复：按照审稿人3的意见要求增加新的一个ISOLET E-set database数据库实验，原来的Deterding database数据库样本少，感觉实验结果没有多大意义，所以我就把这个小数据库的实验结果删除了。自以为采用两个流行的数据库：TIMIT database 和ISOLET E-set database，做实验，足以说明问题了。

数据库的更改使用，我在回复意见时说明了这点。

These changes impress at least
i) possible weaknesses in the understanding of the methods studied in the paper.
ii) possible flaws in the experimental setup and weakness on the control and command of the method being developed.

Reviewer #2:
一片空白，一点意见都没有！默认是同意发表吗？

Reviewer #3: The authors had made an effort by improving the text, the description of the methods and the experiences.
Some of the propositions have also be taken into account. I think that the paper is now suitable for publication.

[ Last edited by tzczsq on 2009-9-9 at 22:03 ]

回复此楼