| ²é¿´: 2687 | »Ø¸´: 27 | |||
| µ±Ç°Ö»ÏÔʾÂú×ãÖ¸¶¨Ìõ¼þµÄ»ØÌû£¬µã»÷ÕâÀï²é¿´±¾»°ÌâµÄËùÓлØÌû | |||
qinhuafengÒø³æ (ÕýʽдÊÖ)
|
[½»Á÷]
Éó¸åÒâ¼û·ÖÎö ÒÑÓÐ26È˲ÎÓë
|
||
|
We have had your manuscript ***** reviewed and I have some referee comments. We regret that your paper, in its present form, is not acceptable for publication in Pattern Recognition. However, if you care to revise it, we will reconsider it for publication. Your revised manuscript is due by Aug 05, 2010 Kindly advise of your plans to resubmit your paper °ïÎÒ·ÖÎöһϣ¬ÓÐÏ£Íû²»£¿×îºóÒ»¾ä»°ÊÇʲôÒâ˼ лл¸÷λ³æ×Ó |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
2026Äê8ÔÂ25ÈÕ¹ú×ÔÈ»·Å°ñǰͻȻÊÕµ½ÁÐÈëÆÀÉóר¼ÒÓʼþ£¬ÓйØÏµÂð£¿
ÒѾÓÐ20È˻ظ´
½ñÌìÎñί»á¿ªÍêÁË£¬Ã÷Ìì³ö½á¹ûÂð
ÒѾÓÐ22È˻ظ´
ÊÛSCIÒ»ÇøT0PÎÄÕ£¬ÎÒ:8O.55.1.O.5.4,¿ÆÄ¿ÆëÈ«,¿É+¼±
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
ÊÛSCIÒ»ÇøT0PÎÄÕ£¬ÎÒ:8.O.55.1.O.5.4,¿ÆÄ¿È«,¿É+¼±
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
ÔÚ¼á±ù»¹¸Ç×ű±º£µÄʱºò£¬ÎÒ¿´µ½ÁËŷŵÄ÷»¨¡£
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´
Ã÷ÌìÓ¦¸Ã¿É²éÁË£¡£¿
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
ÓÐûÓдóÉñ°ïÎÒ¿´¿´»ù½ð´úÂë
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
·Å°ñǰµÄ²»µ¶¨
ÒѾÓÐ19È˻ظ´
ijЩ»ú¹¹£¬ÒÔЧÂʵÍΪÈÙ£¬ÒÔЧÂʵÍ×÷Ϊ´æÔÚ¸Ð
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
2026¹ú×ÔÈ»º¯ÆÀ·Ñµ½ÕË
ÒѾÓÐ23È˻ظ´
crazylithi
Ìú¸Ëľ³æ (ÖªÃû×÷¼Ò)
- Ó¦Öú: 106 (¸ßÖÐÉú)
- ½ð±Ò: 6460.7
- É¢½ð: 8100
- ºì»¨: 39
- Ìû×Ó: 6819
- ÔÚÏß: 1765.6Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 619373
- ×¢²á: 2008-10-07
- רҵ: µç»¯Ñ§
¡ï
Сľ³æ(½ð±Ò+0.5):¸ø¸öºì°ü£¬Ð»Ð»»ØÌû½»Á÷
Сľ³æ(½ð±Ò+0.5):¸ø¸öºì°ü£¬Ð»Ð»»ØÌû½»Á÷
| Ը岻ÄܽÓÊÜ£¬ÈôÒªÖØÍ¶£¬ÒªÈÏÕæÐ޸ģ¬Í¶ÐÞ¸Ä¸å½ØÖ¹ÈÕÆÚΪ8ÔÂ5ÈÕ¡£Ð޸ĺ󣬿ÉÄÜÓÐÏ£Íû¡£ |
23Â¥2010-05-08 21:23:34
jimome
ľ³æ (ÕýʽдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 0 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 4890.7
- É¢½ð: 229
- ºì»¨: 5
- Ìû×Ó: 680
- ÔÚÏß: 506.5Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 617575
- ×¢²á: 2008-10-05
- רҵ: ÐźÅÀíÂÛÓëÐźŴ¦Àí
¡ï
Сľ³æ(½ð±Ò+0.5):¸ø¸öºì°ü£¬Ð»Ð»»ØÌû½»Á÷
Сľ³æ(½ð±Ò+0.5):¸ø¸öºì°ü£¬Ð»Ð»»ØÌû½»Á÷
| Ï£ÍûÄãÈÏÕæÐ޸ģ¬ÈôÄã½ÓÊÜÐ޸ģ¬ÇëÔÚ8ÔÂ5ºÅ֮ǰ·µ»ØÐ޸ĸå |
2Â¥2010-05-08 15:31:26
yfju
½ð³æ (ÕýʽдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 0 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 235.6
- É¢½ð: 96
- Ìû×Ó: 501
- ÔÚÏß: 98.9Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 608846
- ×¢²á: 2008-09-21
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: °ëµ¼Ìå¾§ÌåÓ뱡Ĥ²ÄÁÏ
3Â¥2010-05-08 15:33:42
qinhuafeng
Òø³æ (ÕýʽдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 2 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 351.9
- É¢½ð: 792
- ºì»¨: 4
- Ìû×Ó: 826
- ÔÚÏß: 467.4Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 901447
- ×¢²á: 2009-11-12
- רҵ: ģʽʶ±ð
|
Reviewer #2: 1. The authors should give the influence of their claims to the original work in [1]; 2.The Enlish writing of this comment is really poor, the authors should ask for some help from their colleagues who are more familiar with English; Reviewer #1£º 1They will find that the results are in accordance with the correct version of the equations quoted by them. This fact should be mentioned in their comment paper.£¨Ç°Ã沿·Ö˵µÄÒ»¸öʵÑ飩 2. ¸Äһϱí¸ñÊý¾Ý£¨ÅŰæµÄʱºòд·´ÁË£© ÎÊһϣ¬Èç¹ûÐ޸ĵϰ¸ù±¾²»ÐèÒªÕâô³¤Ê±¼ä£¬ÎÒÄܲ»ÄÜÔÚ°ë¸öÔ¾ÍÌá½»ÁË£¿ |
4Â¥2010-05-08 15:49:41









»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥
28