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 » 投稿求助 » 大家帮忙看看这个 decision letter 还有 argue的空间吗？
61/1返回列表
查看: 2032  |  回复: 5
只看楼主 @他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看

yang3kui

新虫 (初入文坛)

[求助] 大家帮忙看看这个 decision letter 还有 argue的空间吗？

Reviewer Comments:

Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: R - Reject (Paper Is Not Of Sufficient Quality Or Novelty To Be Published In This Transactions)

Comments:
The two main claims of the authors are:

(1) One can use recursions to compute the bilateral filter.

(2) DCT kernels are a *better* option than raised cosines.

As for (1), it is possible that the authors overlooked the fact that the recursions derived in the paper is just another way of writing the recursions in (**). It all boils down to the fact that as soon we have a constant spatial filter and a shiftable range filter, we can use recursions. The case where the spatial filter is not flat is more challenging. It was proposed in (**) that this can also be accounted for by approximating the spatial filter using shiftable kernels. This is exactly what is observed just before Section 3.2.

Coming to point (2), note that it is clear from Fig. 2 that the DCT approximation has the same problem as Taylor polynomials, namely, they are not guaranteed to be monotonic and non-negative, and can oscillate. As was observed in (*) for Taylor polynomials, this can introduce artifacts in the final output, particularly close to edges.

Morally speaking, the DCT kernel is just another linear combination of cosines. And so the idea of using DCT over raise cosines cannot be regarded as very original.


(*) K. N. Chaudhury, D. Sage, and M. Unser, "Fast O(1) Bilateral Filtering Using Trigonometric Range Kernels," IEEE Trans. Image Process., 2011.

(**) K. N. Chaudhury, "Constant-Time Filtering Using Shiftable Kernels," IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 18, 2011.



Additional Questions:
1. Is the topic appropriate for publication in these transactions?: Yes

2. Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field?: Yes

Explain:

1. Is the paper technically sound?: Yes

why not?:

2. Is the coverage of the topic sufficiently comprehensive and balanced?: Treatment somewhat unbalanced, but not seriously so.

3. How would you describe technical depth of paper?: Appropriate for the Generally Knowledgeable Individual Working in the Field or a Related Field

4. How would you rate the technical novelty of the paper?: Somewhat Novel

1. How would you rate the overall organization of the paper?: Could be improved

2. Are the title and abstract satisfactory?: Yes

Explain:

3. Is the length of the paper appropriate? If not, recommend how the length of the paper should be amended, including a possible target length for the final manuscript.: Yes

4. Are symbols, terms, and concepts adequately defined?: Yes

5. How do you rate the English usage? : Needs improvement

6. Rate the Bibliography: Satisfactory

null:

1. How would you rate the technical contents of the paper?: Fair

2. How would you rate the novelty of the paper?: Slightly Novel

3. How would you rate the "literary" presentation of the paper?: Mostly Accessible

4. How would you rate the appropriateness of this paper for publication in this IEEE Transactions?: Good Match


Reviewer: 2

Recommendation: RQ - Review Again After Major Changes

Comments:
-The whole process if represented in a flow diagram would be better
- More examples and more data is necessary
- Some grammatical errors in page 1
- As you're concluding that UBF is a better approach than the previous approaches, a more detailed comparison of the complexity, run-time and various factors leading to this conclusion is necessary
- More info on how the results were validated would be helpful for the readers

Additional Questions:
1. Is the topic appropriate for publication in these transactions?: Perhaps

2. Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field?: Yes

Explain:

1. Is the paper technically sound?: Yes

why not?:

2. Is the coverage of the topic sufficiently comprehensive and balanced?: Treatment somewhat unbalanced, but not seriously so.

3. How would you describe technical depth of paper?: Appropriate for the Generally Knowledgeable Individual Working in the Field or a Related Field

4. How would you rate the technical novelty of the paper?: Somewhat Novel

1. How would you rate the overall organization of the paper?: Could be improved

2. Are the title and abstract satisfactory?: Yes

Explain:

3. Is the length of the paper appropriate? If not, recommend how the length of the paper should be amended, including a possible target length for the final manuscript.: Yes

4. Are symbols, terms, and concepts adequately defined?: Not always

5. How do you rate the English usage? : Satisfactory

6. Rate the Bibliography: Satisfactory

null:

1. How would you rate the technical contents of the paper?: Good

2. How would you rate the novelty of the paper?: Sufficiently Novel

3. How would you rate the "literary" presentation of the paper?: Mostly Accessible

4. How would you rate the appropriateness of this paper for publication in this IEEE Transactions?: Good Match

我觉得第一个审稿人的两条意见，我都很难赞同，特别是第一条。我觉得他没有理解 我的论文和**论文，以至于 从表面上看感觉一样， 其实他们的本质有很大的差别。 第二条 也有问题，我承认没有解决他说说的那两个问题，但是至今都没人解决。而我的算法比之前的more efficient。并能适用于更多场合。

觉得不服气，想要 argue。但是没经验，求高人赐教

第一篇 IEEE Transaction 不想被打击。。。
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 2013-05-03 21:00:57
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

wulishi8

专家顾问 (知名作家)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与，应助指数 +1
一个据稿，一个大修。编辑拒掉是很正常的。还是换期刊吧
赞一下 回复此楼
中山大学材料学院招聘博士后和专职研究员，年薪20万起，请站内联系，谢谢。
2楼2013-05-04 00:05:52
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

goslar

木虫 (职业作家)

我不再应助!

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与，应助指数 +1
no, 没有 argue 的空间了  
改投别的 journal
赞一下 回复此楼
无故被警告,非常失望,我不再应助!
3楼2013-05-04 09:32:09
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

yang3kui

新虫 (初入文坛)
引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by wulishi8 at 2013-05-04 00:05:52
一个据稿，一个大修。编辑拒掉是很正常的。还是换期刊吧

主要是reviewer的comment让我很无语

感觉两个reviewer都没看懂，可能是我写得不好

第一个reviewer以为自己看懂了，于是给了个很奇怪的结论，说我跟**的工作类似。类似个毛线啊，有这个领域常识的人都能看出区别在哪。

另一个reviewer给了很多边缘意见~~感觉不痛不痒。


求安慰
赞一下 回复此楼
4楼2013-05-04 12:05:36
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

yang3kui

新虫 (初入文坛)
引用回帖:
3楼: Originally posted by goslar at 2013-05-04 09:32:09
no, 没有 argue 的空间了  
改投别的 journal

5楼2013-05-04 12:06:26
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

杈杈

荣誉版主 (文坛精英)

Everyone is the No. one！

优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与，应助指数 +1
先按照审稿人的一些中肯的意见修改后，建议改投他刊。
赞一下 回复此楼
望乡——乡归梦思；思念——念往何望
6楼2013-05-04 13:14:47
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 yang3kui 的主题更新
61/1返回列表
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭