24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

chaobo521

银虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 169
帖子: 93
在线: 81.2小时
虫号: 834669
注册: 2009-08-26
性别: GG
专业: 信号理论与信号处理

[求助] 本人第一篇SCI文章，求如何回复审稿人的意见已有1人参与

本人三个月前投了一篇图像处理方面的文章，返回三个审稿人的意见，主编和副主编的意见是好好回答第三个审稿人的意见，但是本人对该审稿人的意见有些问题，拿不准该如何回答：请各位虫友赐教。第三个审稿人的意见如下：
Reviewer #3: The present paper addresses a hot topic of interest in the area.
The first part section the paper presents a brief and concise state of the art of the domain approached. Since this topic has been intensively studied during the last decade and a large number of papers and books have been published, this part might be extended to include the most recent research in this domain, and have to be included in Chapter +References:
R.O. Preda, D.N. Vizireanu, "Blind Watermarking Capacity Analysis of MPEG2 Coded Video", IEEE TELSIKS 2007, 8th International Conference on Telecommunications in Modern Satellite, Cable and Broadcasting Services, 26-28 Sept. 2007, Nis, Serbia and Montenegro, p. 465-468.
D.N. VIZIREANU, R.O Preda, BD Milovanovic, "A New Digital Watermarking scheme for Image Copyright Protection using Wavelet Packets", IEEE TELSIKS 2005, 7th Intern. Conf. on Telecomm. in Modern Satellite, Cable and Broadcasting Services, 28-30 September 2005, Nis, Serbia and Montenegro, p. 518-521.
Some interesting papers have been published recently in CS&SP and have to be included in Chapter 1 +References.
The authors contribution is not clearly underlined. Moreover, the performance design criteria are not addressed in the simulation part.
The simulation results presented are sometimes uncler.
The abbreviations presented in figures are not clear and should be explained in more detail. The results should be more emphasized and the conclusion chapter should be extended.
The results should be also compared with other existing work from the literature.
As a conclusion, the paper presents a high potential and should be accepted only if several and minor changes are made by the authors.
The list of references should be extended to include recent papers, results of relevant research projects, part of them published recently in journal.
The theoretical contribution should be clearly emphasized, and compared with existing literature. The theoretical part that is not connected directly with the simulation performed and brings no novelty in the domain should be removed.
The results should be better explained and their relevance must be commented.
The results should be checked for compliance with other papers from literature.

回复此楼