应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜    

小木虫论坛-学术科研互动平台 » 学术交流区 » 论文投稿 » 交流 » globecom2012被拒反馈意见
131/2返回列表12下一页
查看: 1878  |  回复: 12
只看楼主 @他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看

霸王别姬

木虫 (正式写手)

[交流] globecom2012被拒反馈意见 已有6人参与

> *** Relevance and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research.
Good (4)

> *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper (e.g.: completeness of the
analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour.
Solid work of notable importance. (4)

> *** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas or results presented in the paper.
Some interesting ideas and results on a subject well investigated. (3)

> *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references.
Readable, but revision is needed in some parts. (3)

> *** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper

Timely and useful. The paper's main contribution, despite the claim in the introduction, is the ability to compose chains of caches together to evaluate their performance.

> *** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper?

First, this reviewer must ask if nothing similar has been done in the CDN (Content Distribution Network) community? There must be a wealth of information and related work from that space.

* A few references are missing from experimental networks, with space available.

* Writing is very inconsistent. In places it is fluid and elegant. In others it is barely comprehensible.

* RVRTT assumes knowledge. Some explanation and examples are required.

* Some equations lack intuition/explanation, for example (2) and (3). Also, D in (1) is not defined.

* Section IV is the main contribution of this paper, yet it is the most difficult to comprehend given the amount of missing information.

* FIgure 4b. Despite claim, there is no statistical difference between these curves. Also, why the fall in probability after k=3?

> *** Recommended changes: Recommended changes. Please indicate any changes that should be made to the paper if accepted.

* Address above issues, with focus on the RVRTT issue.

* Reduce use of 'Clearly' - rarely do statements and observations so clearly emerge.

* No appendices, as claimed.

后面括号里的数字什么意思？
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
1楼 2012-07-03 16:55:29
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

heatonli

禁虫 (初入文坛)
★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
本帖内容被屏蔽
2楼2012-07-03 18:54:02
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

3245186

木虫 (正式写手)
已经被拒了吗？
回复此楼
3楼2012-07-03 19:07:56
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

liyingsong

木虫 (著名写手)
★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
对你的文章的评价还是不错的，good
赞一下 回复此楼
4楼2012-07-03 19:13:59
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

xiajimu

铁杆木虫 (知名作家)
给你的文章打分呢
赞一下 回复此楼
5楼2012-07-03 19:19:55
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

magj77

新虫 (初入文坛)
★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
楼主被拒了么？我也被ju了，哀！我是4443，4433，2333.
赞一下 回复此楼
非淡泊无以明志，非宁静无以致远
6楼2012-07-09 22:52:22
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

霸王别姬

木虫 (正式写手)
引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by heatonli at 2012-07-03 18:54:02
是打分，1分最低，5分最高

谢谢！
回复此楼
7楼2012-08-29 09:00:08
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

霸王别姬

木虫 (正式写手)
引用回帖:
3楼: Originally posted by 3245186 at 2012-07-03 19:07:56
已经被拒了吗？

嗯，被拒了
回复此楼
8楼2012-08-29 09:00:26
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

霸王别姬

木虫 (正式写手)
引用回帖:
5楼: Originally posted by xiajimu at 2012-07-03 19:19:55
给你的文章打分呢

谢谢！
回复此楼
9楼2012-08-29 09:00:59
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

霸王别姬

木虫 (正式写手)
引用回帖:
6楼: Originally posted by magj77 at 2012-07-09 22:52:22
楼主被拒了么？我也被ju了，哀！我是4443，4433，2333.

是吗？你的分还挺高的呀
赞一下 回复此楼
10楼2012-08-29 09:01:24
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 霸王别姬 的主题更新
131/2返回列表12下一页
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫 高级回复 (可上传附件)
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭