| 查看: 1480 | 回复: 5 | |||
[交流]
IEEE, UFFC一审意见归来，老实修去了 已有3人参与
|
|
Dear Dr.xx: Your paper has been fully reviewed consistent with the IEEE standards. Based upon my judgement and the reviewers comments, I regret that we cannot accept this paper in its current form for publication. We do encourage you to review the comments of the reviewers and consider reworking your manuscript and resubmitting it to our journal. Our journal has eliminated the decision option, “Major revisions”. It was done in order to give the authors the flexibility to execute additional theoretical and or experimental work without the time constraints associated with the review process. If you decide to resubmit (we hope you do), you will be asked to enter the identification number of this paper during your submission process. If possible, I will be assigned this new paper and will strive to keep the process as consistent with the first review as possible. Thank you for your interests in our journal, and I hope you will submit this paper to our journal. Regards, Dr. xxx [ Last edited by xkool on 2010-9-10 at 21:47 ] |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
有爆料，一个青年教师卖房得400万，然后换了一个四青帽子
已经有3人回复
-
化学工程调剂289
已经有28人回复
-
328求调剂
已经有17人回复
-
材料类284调剂
已经有7人回复
-
334求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
085600材料与化工专硕329 求调剂
已经有22人回复
-
070300化学279求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
土木水利专硕276分求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
331求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
材料与化工专硕306分找合适调剂
已经有24人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 5.10日北京J1签证归来
已经有4人回复
- 国内占坑还是出去啊？纠结中，高手指点
已经有25人回复
- 公派被刷，何去何从，希望大家给点意见
已经有12人回复
- MMTA 一审意见如下，请高手帮看看二审录用几率大吗？一般二审被拒的概率多大呢？
已经有6人回复
- CAMAN2012 会议被列入IEEE释放版权列表
已经有5人回复
- 投IEEE UFFC拒后，中了美国声学学会JASA，投稿历程及审稿时间
已经有27人回复
- 大概统计一下，有多少投稿者，一审给大修的SCI论文最终被拒的？想得出个百分比。
已经有18人回复
yinhuanshun
至尊木虫 (知名作家)
- 应助: 110 (高中生)
- 金币: 14693.7
- 散金: 3688
- 红花: 11
- 帖子: 5171
- 在线: 378.6小时
- 虫号: 200018
- 注册: 2006-02-27
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 生化分析及生物传感
2楼2010-09-10 20:22:25
|
Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author Paper describes a signal processing method that can separate the contributions of different overlapping dispersive guided-wave modes in a time-domain signal. I do not that this paper is suitable for publication for the reasons detailed below, which may be summarised as (1) lack of practical utility of proposed method, (2) poorly developed and over-complicated mathematical treatment of a rather trivial operation. |
3楼2010-09-10 21:47:04
4楼2010-09-10 21:47:30
5楼2010-09-10 22:06:41
6楼2010-09-10 23:18:06
