| 查看: 3384 | 回复: 17 | ||
| 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 | ||
guoguo8034新虫 (初入文坛)
|
[求助]
resubmission & reject 请教大神帮忙
|
|
|
今天收到IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters 的审稿回信。回信内容如下： In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s), and considering the fact that the Letters do not permit "Major Revisions," I must decline the manuscript for publication in the IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters at this time. However, a new manuscript may be submitted which takes into consideration these comments. Please note that resubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your resubmission may be subject to re-review by the reviewer(s) before a decision is rendered. You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of your manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Once you have revised your manuscript, go to http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/awpl and login to your Author Center. Click on "Manuscripts with Decisions," and then click on "Create a Resubmission" located next to the manuscript number. Then, follow the steps for resubmitting your manuscript. 请问大家，重投的审稿人还是之前的吗？重头被录用的机会大吗？ 另外有两个问题是在不知道如何回答，请求大家帮忙。 1、Fig. 5 of the paper shows the gain of the three antennas. It is seen that the gains of antenna 1 and antenna 2 are below 0 dB across the whole operating bandwidth. Additionally, it is noted that their gains are below -7.5 dBi at the operating bandwidth of applications like PCS1900, UMTS2000, TD-SCDMA, LTE and WLAN 802.11b/g or Bluetooth. However, antennas with this gain performance are difficult to be used for those commercial applications. 2、The authors use reflection coefficient less than -6 dB as reference. We believe that the proposed antennas are considered as small antenna. However, there are 3×3 periods of CMT-EBG cells placed on both sides of microstrip fed line. These CMT-EBG cells should be considered as part of the antenna and be counted into the size of antenna. Obviously, this antenna size is too large with the CMT-EBG cells. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
291分调剂
已经有9人回复
-
调剂求收留
已经有34人回复
-
291 求调剂
已经有38人回复
-
22408 312求调剂
已经有17人回复
-
一志愿华中农业071010，320求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
290调剂生物0860
已经有41人回复
-
291求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
211本科材料化工求调剂
已经有23人回复
-
山东省基金2026
已经有9人回复
-
药学求调剂
已经有13人回复
18楼2014-07-09 16:29:06
交大狂人
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
- 应助: 424 (硕士)
- 金币: 114066
- 散金: 8848
- 红花: 76
- 沙发: 888
- 帖子: 20885
- 在线: 3133.9小时
- 虫号: 238619
- 注册: 2006-04-05
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 特殊与极端环境下的高分子
2楼2013-08-29 10:54:21
supervb
铁杆木虫 (文坛精英)
- 应助: 252 (大学生)
- 金币: 8119.6
- 散金: 482
- 红花: 40
- 帖子: 12502
- 在线: 1641.2小时
- 虫号: 162367
- 注册: 2006-01-10
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 动力学与控制
【答案】应助回帖
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
guoguo8034: 金币+10, ★★★★★最佳答案 2013-08-29 17:37:14
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
guoguo8034: 金币+10, ★★★★★最佳答案 2013-08-29 17:37:14
|
1，编辑回信的意思是这个刊物属于Letter性质的，所以没有“大修”的选项，但是审稿人的意见上是认为楼主的稿子应该大修后再审，可见并没有完全拒绝投稿，仅是因为刊物分类原因必须按修改后重新投稿的方式来走这个“大修”的流程，那么意味着应该还是原审稿人负责再审，一般按修改要求完全进行修改的稿子，还是有很大机会被录用的，不然直接拒稿就行了； 2，审稿意见不知如何回答的第一条，审稿人对楼主将天线性能吹到可以应用到诸如PCS1900, UMTS2000, TD-SCDMA, LTE and WLAN 802.11b/g or Bluetooth有些不满了，认为有夸大的成分，如果要回复的话，要么删除对应句子，要么就对每个可能的商业应用给出具体设计例子，来证明可以用上去。 3，审稿人认为作者引用的反射系数是针对small antenna的，而稿子里的天线是“3×3 periods of CMT-EBG cells placed on both sides of microstrip fed line”，那么实际天线尺寸要大于CMT-EBG cells，这时small antenna的反射系数是否可靠呢？这里要回复的话，要么找到对应文献（指已经发表的用small antenna的反射系数分析大天线尺寸的文章）来说明可以这样做，要么自己给出实验数据来说明可以这样做！ |
3楼2013-08-29 10:56:54
jinkui960
至尊木虫 (知名作家)
- 应助: 1220 (讲师)
- 金币: 10246.5
- 散金: 1000
- 红花: 42
- 沙发: 1
- 帖子: 5797
- 在线: 517.3小时
- 虫号: 1327313
- 注册: 2011-06-20
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 生物防治
4楼2013-08-29 12:25:00
