| 查看: 1977 | 回复: 5 | |||
[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
职称评审没过，求安慰
已经有55人回复
-
最近几年招的学生写论文不引自己组发的文章
已经有5人回复
-
26申博自荐
已经有3人回复
-
A期刊撤稿
已经有4人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- PRL argue Letter 怎么递交？
已经有8人回复
- 这种情况可以argue吗？审稿人认为不适合发letter，应该写成长文章……
已经有8人回复
- 有经验的虫虫帮看看decision letter（JOTE），是否有继续修改的必要？
已经有6人回复
- 文章被拒，是否申诉？
已经有25人回复
- 头疼，怎么argue?
已经有12人回复
wulishi8
专家顾问 (知名作家)
-
专家经验: +373 - SEPI: 5
- 应助: 1195 (博后)
- 贵宾: 0.888
- 金币: 28970.7
- 散金: 4194
- 红花: 517
- 帖子: 7711
- 在线: 1702.7小时
- 虫号: 654606
- 注册: 2008-11-15
- 专业: 凝聚态物性 II ：电子结构
- 管辖: 论文投稿交流
2楼2013-05-04 00:05:52
goslar
木虫 (职业作家)
我不再应助!
- 应助: 118 (高中生)
- 金币: 3592.7
- 红花: 6
- 帖子: 3115
- 在线: 174.5小时
- 虫号: 1547023
- 注册: 2011-12-22
- 性别: MM
- 专业: 免疫生物学
3楼2013-05-04 09:32:09
4楼2013-05-04 12:05:36
 |
5楼2013-05-04 12:06:26
杈杈
荣誉版主 (文坛精英)
Everyone is the No. one！
- 应助: 680 (博士)
- 贵宾: 12.487
- 金币: 73169.8
- 散金: 34501
- 红花: 162
- 沙发: 27
- 帖子: 23674
- 在线: 1844.3小时
- 虫号: 314395
- 注册: 2007-02-25
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 生物化学
- 管辖: 学术会议
6楼2013-05-04 13:14:47