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    

CyRhmU.jpeg
小木虫论坛-学术科研互动平台 » 学术交流区 » 论文投稿 » 求助完结 » 论文大修，但是改不动，郁闷呀
51/1返回列表
查看: 2096  |  回复: 4
只看楼主@他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看

smallbug2000

木虫 (著名写手)

[求助] 论文大修，但是改不动，郁闷呀

投了一篇论文到某期刊，最近返回结果，三个审稿人，其中两个审稿人意见较少。另一个觉得算法的创新性不够，给了大修，悲剧的是这篇论文之前投到CVPR去，也是这个审稿人审的（CVPR据了我），因为审稿意见基本一样，故可以断定是同一审稿人。最终编辑给了大修，但是我很绝望，因为给大修的审稿人从一开始就不认可我的算法，我想既然我认真修改了，可能还是会被他据。将编辑及大修审稿人意见附后，在此向各位大牛咨询两件事：1）该论文是否值得大修，修后被据的概率多大？2）如果大修，如果对付审稿人这么尖锐的问题。在些感谢，对于好的建议发放金币。
Dear Dr. XXX,

Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.
The reviewers' comments can be found at the end of this email or can be accessed by following the provided link.
When revising your work, please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript.

Yours sincerely
XXX, Ph.D.
Associate Editor
XXXXX
Reviewers' comments:

The paper was reviewed by three experts on the topic. The reviewers agree that the paper discusses an important problem worth pursuing. They, however, also unanimously point out short comings of the paper, most important of which is the lack of thorough theoretical and experimental validation of the claims as well as references to prior work. The paper needs major revision to be considered for publication. If the authors decide to submit a major revision, please make sure to address the points raised by the reviewers.

Reviewer #2: : This paper deals with the problem of visual tracking with irregular object motion. The particle set shift approach based on analytic optimization is proposed to deal with the incorrect state dynamic model. Particles are first sampled by the state dynamic model and they are moved to higher likelihood regions by newton optimization by maximizing likelihoods. The efficacy of the proposed approach is demonstrated via experiments with real sequences.

- Positive points: Practically effective approach
- Negative points: Not novel approach, rather heuristic, not convincing experimental results

: The main problem of this paper is the proposed approach is not novel. The proposed approach is quite similar to [18] except the fact that the proposed approach used newton optimization instead of mean shift.

: The proposed approach is rather heuristic. In the algorithm, particle weights are only proportional to likelihood, and this holds true for SIR particle filter where particles are sampled from state dynamic model. However, since particles are moved to higher likelihoods artificially, the weights determined from likelihoods will no longer correctly represent the true posterior. The proposed approach is rather similar to the particle swarm optimization-based tracking, e.g., "Sequential particle swarm optimization for visual tracking" by xxxx. Another problem of the proposed approach is that it might result in worse tracking results when there are appearance changes caused by various issues such as pose and lighting changes.

: Since the proposed work is based on particle filter, the optimal importance functions used for visual tracking are also relevant. If we can use the optimal importance function, the irregular motion can be handled at least partially. Thus the following papers should be cited and commented as related work:
- ref1xxxx
- ref2xxxx
: The supplementary video result is too limited. Only a result for a single short sequence is not sufficient to support the validity of the proposed approach. Why is there no rotational motion in the results? The paper says that the state is translation, scale, and rotation, but there is no rotational motion in the results in the paper and video.

: There must be cases that all particles are outside the basin of convergence. Since the particle are shifted by local optimization, particles will diverge from the optimal positions and tracking will fail. In the proposed approach, there is no consideration of this possibility.

: The optimization will increase the computational complexity considerably. It is necessary to compare the other algorithms under the same computational time, e.g., proposed framework with 100 particles and standard particle filter with 1000 particles.

My current recommendation is major revision. If the authors want to make the paper accepted in spite of the limited novelty and contribution, I think the followings should be addressed in the revision:
- Additional experiments with object appearance changes like illumination
- Addition of a mechanism to deal with the local optima problems with additional experiments with related videos
- Comparison under the same computational complexity for different tracking algorithms

[ Last edited by cxksama on 2012-9-6 at 10:48 ]
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2012-09-06 09:26:36
已阅   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

yangsh_nj

木虫 (著名写手)

【答案】应助回帖

★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
smallbug2000: 金币+20, ★★★很有帮助 2012-09-06 09:42:24
你这种把整个信件贴上来的行为不可取，至少需要抹去Editor等信息。另外，你这样明目张胆的把整个信件不加任何处理就贴上来的行为本身就是对杂志，对editor,对reviewer的不尊重。如果我碰到这种情况，毫不犹豫的拒稿。
赞一下 回复此楼
2楼2012-09-06 09:32:14
 已阅   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

smallbug2000

木虫 (著名写手)
知道了，我请求版主删除
赞一下 回复此楼
3楼2012-09-06 09:35:48
 已阅   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

★ ★ ★
cxksama: 金币+3, 鼓励交流，有道理。 2012-09-06 09:57:22
1) 若没办法根据 reviewer 的意见大修的话~就改投吧~
或是 建议 editor 改更换新的 rviewer.

2) 2F 的意见及立场固然是没错，但我个人觉得没有什么不妥。
Why?
楼主并没有把 reviewer 的姓名公开。这是一个 "盲审"；editor 也没有对楼主公开谁是 reviewer，所以楼主并没有道德上的问题。
至于楼主把 editor 的姓名及单位公开，这也没什么不妥的。
Editor 本身就是一个公开的信息，不论在投稿系统，在官网的Editorial board 上，都是公开的。
身为一名 editor 是可接受 "公议"，也让投稿作者(楼主)知道责任编辑是谁。


基于此，我个人并不觉得楼主有什么错，或道德上的瑕疵。
赞一下 回复此楼
我的爱徒~再撑一下~你快拿到清华全校优秀硕士论文了~
4楼2012-09-06 09:51:23
 已阅   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)
或是 建议 editor 改更换新的 rviewer. ===> typo.   reviewer.
赞一下 回复此楼
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2012-09-06 10:00:30
 已阅   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 smallbug2000 的主题更新
51/1返回列表
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭