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    

CyRhmU.jpeg
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 » resubmission & reject 请教大神帮忙
51/1返回列表
查看: 3098  |  回复: 17
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

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

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
1楼2013-08-29 10:41:04
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

wh6509

木虫 (小有名气)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与，应助指数 +1
重投就有希望，按照审稿意见好好改，在Cover Letter里说明
赞一下 回复此楼
9楼2013-08-30 21:59:29
 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 18 个回答

交大狂人

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与，应助指数 +1
重投的审稿人有可能一样 也可能不一样
录用与否看文章质量
赞一下 回复此楼
2楼2013-08-29 10:54:21
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

supervb

铁杆木虫 (文坛精英)

【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
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！
赞一下(1人) 回复此楼
咱是做非线性随机动力学的哟
3楼2013-08-29 10:56:54
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

jinkui960

至尊木虫 (知名作家)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与，应助指数 +1
嗯，编辑让你重投，说明他对你的文章还是感兴趣的，认真修改，祝好运！
赞一下 回复此楼
4楼2013-08-29 12:25:00
 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 18 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