| 查看: 1370 | 回复: 15 | |||
| 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 | |||
moller木虫 (著名写手)
|
[交流]
虫友看下，被reject了，是不是还有希望申诉或resubmit？
|
||
|
主编好像是拒掉建议不要重投 三个审稿人的态度 第一个婉拒 第二个比较直接拒 第三个还好点 We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript, "*****". With regret, I must inform you that, based on the advice received, the Editor-in-Chief has decided that your manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in *******. Attached, please find the reviewer comments for your perusal. I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration and wish you every success in finding an alternative place of publication. Best regards, ********* Comments for the Author: Reviewer #1: The paper does not have much novelty, with many of the ideas presented in this work having been said many times in different forms. The elimination of synchronization data points in a way to achieve high accuracy with minimal amount of stored data resembles to the concepts used in tiny-sync and mini-sync protocols, which are cited but with no details in the related work section. This section is of no value to the paper in its current form. The authors should position the proposed work in the current state of the art in this section, and set the grounds for the rest of the paper by highlighting the short-comings of previous work if any and motivate the current proposal. The related work section as it is now is too limited and has no explicit connection to the proposed ideas. This should also be taken into account if the authors wish to extend ideas and resubmit the paper. The concepts proposed in the paper merely consist in two components: (i) a single-hop synchronization scheme that is a slight variation of two-way message exchange and the reference broadcast sync primitives, (ii) a multi-hop extension of the single-hop synchronization that has no novelty and uses a level-based propagation of the snyc data. Moreover, the selection of the reference node is not investigated in the paper. The single-hop case where a node uses carrier sensing to set itself as the reference node does not apply directly to the multi-hop case. The simulation scenario is limited and the results presented in the paper are not comprehensive. The paper is poorly written in many sections. For a resubmission the authors should also carefully go through the whole paper and revise the text. One specific comment is to reduce the number of new paragraphs - currently there are many single-sentence paragraphs, which is unnecessary. Reviewer #2: This reviewer thought that the contribution of the manuscript was marginal, advantages of the proposed time synchronization technique were questionable. Consequently, I suggest to reject the manuscript. Reviewer #3: This paper aims at presenting a new approach for synchronizing nodes in a wireless network through the use of lightweight computations and small amount of message overhead. The goal is interesting since this is a major issue in wireless sensor networks in which many applications and algorithms would perform better when nodes are totally synchronized but where synchronization is considered as an expensive tool in terms of message overhead, computation, latency and energy consumption. Nevertheless, the contribution of this paper is not clearly identified. The authors introduce a model called LFS. LFS seems very close to existing schemes and this would be useful to clearly identify in what LFS differs from the literature schemes. Then, LFS is evaluated through simulations. My concern here would be that it would deserve to be compared to more other schemes, once again to help the reader to distinct LFS from other schemes. Indeed, LFS is only compared to BTS-M which is not well explained enough. At last, results show that LFS performs better than BTS only for some features but perform less for other ones. It would be interesting to explain more deeply why we observe this behavior and why LFS is still competitive. [ Last edited by moller on 2009-12-15 at 22:26 ] |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
FileCode能看出啥？
已经有23人回复
-
应该是93bebmhtak前后十一个字符比较关键
已经有36人回复
-
关于Filecode分析方法
已经有9人回复
-
2019年青年基金涵评意见，大家看看几个A，几个B?
已经有10人回复
-
不应该看fileCode
已经有6人回复
-
好奇怪的filecode
已经有6人回复
-
长年满屏的广告，版主太不责任了。基金也等的急
已经有4人回复
-
filecode
已经有15人回复
-
职称评审，求友友推荐见刊最快的期刊
已经有4人回复
-
奇怪，两个人的filecode固定段从头到尾一模一样
已经有10人回复
moller
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 9703.8
- 散金: 1000
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 1660
- 在线: 256.6小时
- 虫号: 721220
- 注册: 2009-03-12
- 专业: 计算机应用技术
13楼2009-12-17 15:51:33
moller
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 9703.8
- 散金: 1000
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 1660
- 在线: 256.6小时
- 虫号: 721220
- 注册: 2009-03-12
- 专业: 计算机应用技术
3楼2009-12-15 21:17:07
4楼2009-12-15 21:40:00
5楼2009-12-15 21:41:14
