| 查看: 2074 | 回复: 12 | |||
| 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 | |||
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
293调剂
已经有3人回复
-
机械工程264学硕求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
264求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
22408 266求调剂
已经有7人回复
-
求调剂
已经有14人回复
-
273求调剂
已经有43人回复
-
307求调剂
已经有13人回复
-
327求调剂
已经有7人回复
-
338求调剂
已经有6人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- optical engineering 大修后意见为小修后录用，另图片质量问题求助
已经有11人回复
- 2012年基金限2项的对策理解——同时申请面上和小杰青可行吗？
已经有17人回复
- 有什么渠道可以向全国哲社规划办反馈意见？2012年不能再限额申报了！
已经有28人回复
- 2012校园招聘信息--上海联影医疗科技有限公司（打造世界级的中国医疗设备公司离不开您
已经有3人回复
- 如何从“申请项目同行评议意见反馈信”看是否上会
已经有33人回复
- 文章被拒了，麻烦各位高手进来帮忙分析下拒绝意见。谢谢
已经有12人回复
- 论文被拒，编辑意见改后重投
已经有15人回复
- 被J.Phys.Chem C拒了，2个审稿人意见差别很大，遇到这种情况我该咋办
已经有16人回复
- 被拒了，要改投，可是投哪里很迷茫，请各位给点意见，谢谢
已经有24人回复
xiajimu
铁杆木虫 (知名作家)
- 应助: 1703 (讲师)
- 金币: 12573.5
- 散金: 9739
- 红花: 35
- 帖子: 5940
- 在线: 2164.6小时
- 虫号: 288243
- 注册: 2006-10-21
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 化学工程及工业化学
5楼2012-07-03 19:19:55
★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
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
liyingsong
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 285 (大学生)
- 金币: 1550.7
- 散金: 266
- 红花: 4
- 帖子: 1350
- 在线: 51.5小时
- 虫号: 928270
- 注册: 2009-12-15
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 通信理论与系统
4楼2012-07-03 19:13:59
6楼2012-07-09 22:52:22
