[½»Á÷] GRSL´ÓMajor Revisionµ½Reject and Resubmit£¬±¯¾ç£¡ ÒÑÓÐ3È˲ÎÓë

2012Äê12Ô·ÝͶÁËһƪGRSL£¬Ò»¸öÔº󷵻ØÒâ¼û£¬ÈçÏ£º Your manuscript **** has been reviewed by the GRSL Editorial Review Board and found to be not acceptable without major revisions. It is recommended that you revise your paper and resubmit it in accordance with the Editorial Review Board comments given below. Reviewer(s) Comments: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author No comments. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author In attachment, authors may find some minor issues that should be addressed. Below, some additional issues: 1 - The proposed method was set a maximum number of iterations of 15. Why? I understand that the more iterations are employed, the more time/computation is required. However, why exactly 15? I think it would be beneficial for the work a more quantitative analysis of this threshold value. For instance, for varying number of iterations, quantify the computation time and argue on the choice of the iterations based on the desired computation time; 2 - In the PDF file, the region boundaries are in red. But when printed in B&W (as in most printers) information is mostly lost. I suggest to use pure white (255) instead of red; 3 - The curves in the plots require no color. Please use patterns and make them black for ease of reading; 4 - I recommend removing "Novel" from the title. Not because the proposal is not new, but because it surely must be new in other to be published. So "novel" is redundant. 5 - Authors furnish an example using a particular image. Particular images seldom are representative of a possible more general behavior. Why not considering a set of images and analyzing the mean results? ÕâЩ¶¼ÊÇСÎÊÌ⣬µ±Ê±¾õµÃÕâƪÎÄÕÂûʲôÎÊÌâÁË£¬½á¹û¾ÍûÖØÊÓ£¬ÈýÁ½Ï¾͸ÄÍêÁË£¬¹ýÁ½Ìì¾ÍÌá½»ÁËÐ޸ĸ壬½á¹û±¯¾çÁË£¬ÈýÖܺó¸øÁËÎÒReject and Resubmit Your paper **** has been carefully reviewed by the GRSL review panel and found to be unacceptable in its present form. The reviewers did suggest, however, that if completely revised the paper might be found acceptable. We encourage you to revise and resubmit this manuscript as a new paper to GRSL. Associate Editor Comments: Associate Editor Comments to the Author: Dear Authors: based on the recommendations, I regret to inform you that your paper is not suitable for publication in GRSL. Reviewer(s) Comments: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author A minor correction. Page 3, col. 2, line 38. "shoule" should be corrected as "should". Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author Authors have addressed most of the points I have raised, but not all of them. - Again, I ask to avoid colors. (Fig 1 and Fig 7). Fig 7(b) green areas can be easily set to full white. Colored areas in Fig 7(c) could use a gray-scale palette; - Sentences are still beginning with symbols, which is a bad practice (e.g. page 7 of 10, line 53); - The discussion about the number of iteration and the threshold value E is not clear. Why 10^(-5)? Also, I couldn't spot in the manuscript any discussion on this point; - The expression "error converges" is very mathematically loose. Convergence in what sense? Convergence to what? Authors seem to be only regarding the magnitude of the error, which may well be OK. But as it is stated it is a bit confusing; - Regarding Fig 1, authors provide a long explanation in the rebuttal letter, but in the paper it is extremely concise. I think it could be better explained in the paper. - Punctuation in equations is often incorrect. See (2), (3), (4). Should use commas, not periods. - Grammar is still improperly used. See page 7 of 10, column 2, line 51 (Sentence starts with lowercase "then". ¿´ÁËÕâ·âÓʼþ¶ÙʱÐÄÁ¹ÁË°ë½Ø°¡£¬ÊÇÎÒÐÄ´æ½ÄÐÒ²»ºÃºÃÐÞ¸ÄÎÄÕµ¼ÖµÄÂð£¿Èç¹ûÎÒÈÏÕæÐ޸ĺóÕâƪÎÄÕ»¹ÓÐÏ£ÍûÂ𣿿à±ÆµÄÎÒÁ¬Ä궼¹ýµÄ²»Ë¬ÁË°¡

»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥