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 » 本人第一篇SCI文章，求如何回复审稿人的意见
51/1返回列表
查看: 2647  |  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
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)

[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

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
1楼 2013-05-20 15:44:16
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

mxqiu

铜虫 (初入文坛)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与，应助指数 +1
R.O. Preda 很可能就是这个人审的！！！按照他的意思好好改就行了，最好不要跟他顶。祝好运！！
赞一下(2人) 回复此楼
4楼2013-05-20 21:53:43
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 6 个回答

nono2009

超级版主 (文学泰斗)

No gains, no pains.

优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀版主

【答案】应助回帖

★ ★ ★ ★ ★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
chaobo521: 金币+5, ★★★很有帮助 2013-05-20 17:43:02
这些要求都不难理解吧。逐条修改并说明如何修改的即可。
例如：
你的文献引用不够充分，那么就按建议的去增加一些文献，并回复增加了哪些文献。
The authors contribution is not clearly underlined. 你的论文的贡献说明得不够清楚，需要更为清晰的说明。
等等。。。。
赞一下 回复此楼
2楼2013-05-20 16:14:41
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

chaobo521

银虫 (小有名气)
引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by nono2009 at 2013-05-20 16:14:41
这些要求都不难理解吧。逐条修改并说明如何修改的即可。
例如：
你的文献引用不够充分，那么就按建议的去增加一些文献，并回复增加了哪些文献。
The authors contribution is not clearly underlined. 你的论文的 ...

谢谢回复，我主要是不知道该采用什么样的表述方式回答审稿人的意见。比如，他说我采用的评价准则应该在仿真实验部分进行说明，但是我论文中已经将相应的准则方程给出了啊
赞一下 回复此楼
3楼2013-05-20 17:42:20
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

zhoupeng87

版主 (文学泰斗)

优秀版主优秀版主

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与，应助指数 +1
那你就按照他的要求加些文献吧
赞一下(1人) 回复此楼
5楼2013-05-21 16:31:51
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 6 个回答
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭