24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 672  |  回复: 7

wjlwyk

新虫 (正式写手)

[求助] 请高人帮我修改

Dear editor
We are confused with the opinions given by the the referee (only one?) on our paper numbered STAPRO-D-12-00249.
First of all, we can not see HOW the conclusions in our paper can be followed imidiatly by any references the referee listed as his or her main opinoin, as a matter of fact, as far as we can see, those reference articles seem to have no tight connections with our conclusions at all, for example, we didn't discuss the variance of sample median (but the referee gave us two reference articles on the variances of sapmle medians), we discussed mainly the variance of sample midrange which is rarely discussed by schlars, It seems that the referee might draw his or her critical conclusions hurriedly.
Secondly, as you can see, the asymptotic independence conclusion is not our main conclusion, we prove it in detail in order to make our paper easy for referees. We don't understand why the referee used the same method as we applied in our paper to prove the asymptotic independence too.
We thank the referee for his findings of some of our misspellings, But, the key mistake, the definition of left bound 'a' in our paper was strangely not found.
Moreover, we wonder if there should be a word 'to' in the referee's opinion '... in order give proofs of such lemmas'.
We mistakenly think that the 'letter' type of journals might publish an article very soon if it is accepted, we are astonished to see that our paper needs half a year for a decision while the opinion drawn by the referee seems to be in a hurry way.
Yes, we are not patient enough for a decision, maybe this is the reason.
After all, we will not try to publish our articles on your journal. NEVER!!! We fill hurt at the referee's attitude.
>
>Yours sincerely,
>***
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:

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

独步青云

新虫 (职业作家)

术中小生

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
你这什么都没有问,修改什么?哪有这么好的事啊
2楼2012-09-01 23:02:33
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

visitor958

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

IEEE杂志与会议专家

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by 独步青云 at 2012-09-01 23:02:33
你这什么都没有问,修改什么?哪有这么好的事啊

对,这像是申述,又像就算抱怨。应该是文章写得不清楚,审稿人提了些问题。。。编辑拒了没有?没有的话,就尽量修改,客气回答。

抱怨的话,letter杂志不是都是快的杂志,一般文字短。审稿时间,数学类一年都不少,半年不算慢了。
3楼2012-09-01 23:55:56
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

visitor958

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

IEEE杂志与会议专家

【答案】应助回帖

楼主是不是催稿后被拒?这样的事比较常见,不是非常好的文章,编辑可以说一些极端的话,拒掉算了。。。
4楼2012-09-02 00:01:15
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

rockinuk

铁杆木虫 (职业作家)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
agree above especially visitor958 said.
我的爱徒~再撑一下~你快拿到清华全校优秀硕士论文了~
5楼2012-09-02 00:05:20
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

visitor958

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

IEEE杂志与会议专家

看看这个letter
http://muchong.com/bbs/journal.php?view=detail&jid=6399
审稿速度 (几个人的平均)
平均 18 个月的审稿周期
6楼2012-09-02 00:33:22
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

wjlwyk

新虫 (正式写手)

我觉得是审稿被主编催火了,审稿自己也极端不认真,老实说,我的文章写得非常通俗,证明也非常巧妙,别人也不可能已经有此结论,审稿被一再催促下匆忙洗出拒绝意见,除了两个英文单词拼写笔误被指出来,没有任何指导意义!!!甚至,我自己都看出的一点比较明显的毛病居然没有发现。。。,审稿评语居然说“也 可 能 在提交论文中证明了”,证明他都不太确定正确性还要审稿6个月干什么?
稿件让我自己读博士同事看,几天就看完了,感觉也很不错,怎么差别如此大?最后3个月每月催告一次的结果?
7楼2012-09-02 11:39:28
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

wjlwyk

新虫 (正式写手)

审稿人评论中就论文标题洋洋洒洒说了两大段,然后就是说相关文献很多,文章结论可能早就有了,还说写文章要先检索,并且列出一些文献,悲剧的我难道没有检索码?在证明独立性时居然用我们文章中的方法说明我们做法不妥,真扯淡。具体方面的问题就两个单词拼写错误被指出。。。
审稿就这学术水平,就这道德水准?太让人失望了
8楼2012-09-02 11:48:26
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 wjlwyk 的主题更新
信息提示
请填处理意见