24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

dewhjr

银虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 2 (幼儿园)
金币: 598.8
红花: 1
帖子: 30
在线: 109.3小时
虫号: 506314
注册: 2008-02-18
性别: MM
专业: 计算机科学的基础理论

[交流] 论文被拒～大家看看问题出在哪儿呢已有8人参与

在投稿系统显示论文“Required Review Complete”一个月零一天后的今天收到了主编的拒稿邮件（曾在7月10号左右发过邮件给主编希望他能尽快的返回审稿意见）。邮件中主编说是根据审稿人意见作出的拒稿决定，但我看审稿人意见，除了英语需要修改外，其它没啥大问题，比如增加实验。但主编直接就拒了，还拒的很彻底。个人觉得他拒的很牵强，感觉应该给个修改后再审的机会。我把主编的邮件和审稿人的意见附在下面，大家看看问题出在哪儿了呢。

主编：
Thank you for submitting your manuscript for possible publication in ×××.

Following are the reviews for your paper referenced above.  Based on the reviews, I regret that I cannot accept or further consider it for publication in ×××.

Thank you for your interest in ×××.
Sincerely,
Dr. ×××
Editor-in-Chief
×××

主编返回的审稿人意见：

Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1: First, English should be improved, many errors and sentences are too long that lead to a misunderstand. This paper was presented a methud that its name is ×××. this methud Does not change much with the previous methud. But There is little innovation, Where used from two-dimensional ××× in conjunction with the ××× image denoising algorithm. Formula 7 in page 10, is not a new formula of estimators. This formula was used previously. Finally this paper With a small change can become a good article.
Sincerely,

Reviewer #3: In the paper, ××× is used for denoising images. ×××（对论文方法的描述）. It is claimed that "The comparative experimental results for natural images and medical images show that the method introduced in the paper achieves better denoising performance, and that  the accuracy and computational cost of the ××× image denoising algorithm are all improved."
1. As far as I can see, the formulations used in the paper seem to be O.K.
2. But the language used in the paper needs to be highly corrected.  To show the locations of the linguistic mistakes, I attached a Word document in which the problematic  words and phrases are colored into yellow.  And probably there are more mistakes that I missed throughout the paper.
3. Instead of having a fixed 21x21 pixel search window, it would be interesting to see the effects of changing the window size.
4. In Table 1, as the author confessed, the method introduced in this paper does not outperform all other state-of-the art methods, but it still gives comparable performance results. Similar results are valid for Table 2.
5. It would be good to add the computation times of the method in Table 3 since it outperforms other denoising methods in PSNR every now and then.
6. Finally the last sentence in the "Abstract" should be corrected maybe by writing it as
"Finally, the comparative experimental results show that our method achieves better denoising performance in some  of the well known images and outperforms other methods in computational time in all images."

顺便提一句，审稿人2说他提供了一份指出我论文中语法错误之类的word文档，但主编咋个没有把这个文档返回给我呢...

回复此楼