| 查看: 4124 | 回复: 53 | ||
[求助]
论文被拒两次了，现在不知道怎么办了，求教各位虫友
|
||
|
论文第一次投是在今年5月份，后来7月份收到拒稿信，然后根据两位审稿人的意见进行了大幅度的修改和增添内容（由原来的4000字左右增加到了6000多字），也增加了一个跟其他文献的对比实验；第二次是在8月8日投出去的，现在刚又收到拒稿信了。主要是说我文章的创新性和contribution不足，可是我在第一部分已经结论中都已经提到本文的contribution和创新性了啊。而且按照审稿意见，貌似审稿人希望的是系统中各个模块都应该有创新性，可是一篇文章哪来那么多创新点啊？ 下面将审稿意见贴出来，大家帮我看看下一步该怎么办吧？这种情况下是不是申诉也意义不大了啊？哎，论文从写作到投稿再到修改，老板从来没有过问过，想让他帮我看看也没有空的，就说先投出去看回来的审稿意见再修改好了，可是。。。做学生的哪里来的那么多时间和精力来回折腾啊  In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s) found at the bottom of this letter, your manuscript has been denied publication in ***. We all appreciate your efforts to improve the paper however it is still weak and for any future papers you should be sure to highlight the original elements of your work. For a paper to be published in our journal it must add significantly to the body of existing work. I think you need to take your research further and deeper. Reviewer: 1 Comments: 1. Originality: The authors have made a significant effort to improve the paper by amending the questions pointed out by this reviewer; nevertheless, the contribution is still weak. 2. Relationship to Literature: Yes, the authors seem to have a good knowledge about the related publications and they took into account the reviewer's suggestion of including and commenting the work from Smart (2007). 3. Methodology: Tables I to IV have been removed and the information included as text, which is an acceptable solution. Fig 12 (Fig 17 in the reviewed version) has been explained a little bit. However, the methodology remains as it was. 4. Results: The experiments have been improved significantly splitting the section into two subsections and giving additional explanations. 5. Practicality and/or Research implications: The only practical implication this reviewer can see is the one derived from the importance of using middleware in the design of robot controllers; but I cannot see any specific implication derived from this paper. 6. Quality of Communication: The paper is written well and the readability is still good Reviewer: 2 Comments: The paper presents a middleware-based software structure for service robots. The proposed solution presents a multi-layered structure based on CORBA architecture and RTM (Robot Technology Middleware). The paper gives an overview of the software architecture and of the implemented software modules, and finally, experimental results with a service robot are provided to validate the approach. The paper is quite clear and easy to follow, and the proposed solution is interesting and well structured; the main questionable issues about the paper concern the fact the paper presents the developed software structure but it does not adequately address the novelty of the proposed architecture with respect to the literature on the field. For example, a part from describing the chosen software framework and the developed modules, the Authors should better explain what are the advantages of the proposed solution and what are the innovative components. Moreover, despite the software structure seems to be promising, the paper gives just an overview of the different modules; none of them is described in details and most of them seem just to implement standard solutions. Thus, the Authors should further explain the novelty the developed modules and provide more details to allow a proper evaluation of their characteristics. The experimental validation is quite weak and mainly left to few snapshots of the performed mission. The Auhtors should provide more analytical instruments to evaluate the system performance in order to properly validate its effectiveness. Additional Questions: 1. Originality: The paper presents a middleware-based software structure for service robots. The proposed solution presents a multi-layered structure based on CORBA architecture and RTM (Robot Technology Middleware). The paper gives an overview of the software architecture and of the implemented software modules, and finally, experimental results with a service robot are provided to validate the approach. The developed software seems well structured; however the Authors should further address the novelty of the proposed architecture with respect to the literature on the field. Indeed, despite the proposed architecture seems interesting, it is not clear what is the novelty of the software module, and what are the advantages of the chosen software platform with respect to other (e.g. middleware architectures based on ROS). 2. Relationship to Literature: As above, in the reviewer opinion the Authors should further address the novelty of the proposed architecture with respect to the literature on the field, and what are its advantages with respect to other platforms. 3. Methodology: The paper is quite clear and easy to be read; however it is quite descriptive and none of the software modules is described in details. This choice allows the reader to have a clear overview of the software structure but does not allow to appreciate in details the effectiveness of the proposed solution. 4. Results: The experimental validation should be further improved to give more analytical instruments to evaluate the system performances. 5. Practicality and/or Research implications: The proposed software seems an interesting solution for service robotics. 6. Quality of Communication: The paper is quite clear and easy to be read. 为了方便大家阅读，我已经加粗了部分我觉得重要的意见。希望小木虫上的各位虫友能给我提些意见啊，这里先谢谢大家了。 [ Last edited by avast2009 on 2013-9-17 at 10:41 ] |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
材料专硕283求调剂
已经有7人回复
-
一志愿北京2，材料与化工308求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
一志愿9材料学硕297已过六级求调剂推荐
已经有8人回复
-
278求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
285求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
一志愿武理材料工程302调剂环化或化工
已经有20人回复
-
348求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
本科211 分数293请求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
一志愿南农090401，268，求调剂
已经有4人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- materials letters 投稿求助！关于论文字数！有经验的帮忙看下！
已经有9人回复
- 编辑说文章的外审专家不是不回复就是拒审，要退稿，怎么办
已经有4人回复
- 求教各位虫友，怎样可以查询一些对研究生开放的国际会议信息？
已经有4人回复
- 求教：什么论文能奖励50万元？
已经有107人回复
- 关于论文字数问题，向大家求教！
已经有8人回复
- 审稿人建议动物实验，补不了，怎么委婉的回复呢
已经有5人回复
- 关于论文内容重复及引用的问题，向大家求教！
已经有21人回复
- 论文出版费 求教
已经有9人回复
- 小弟第一次投的《微电子学与计算机》，已经审稿50天了，是不是被拒了？
已经有23人回复
- 文章两次外审后退稿修改，现在该怎么办？
已经有13人回复
- 求教talanta杂志选编辑问题
已经有3人回复
- 求教大论文写作经验
已经有7人回复
- 文章修回了，但问题不知道怎么回答，求教！！
已经有3人回复
- 一篇英文文章连被拒了两次，怎么办？
已经有41人回复
- 各位虫友们请帮帮忙啊，万分感谢了！！！！！
已经有13人回复
- 想写论文，不知道该如何下手
已经有6人回复
- 求教引用次数查询
已经有3人回复
- 求教投过Journal of Alloys and Compounds的虫友们
已经有6人回复
- 求教各位我的chemistry letters 怎么回事啊
已经有3人回复
scortan
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 48 (小学生)
- 金币: 2127.5
- 散金: 47
- 红花: 3
- 帖子: 436
- 在线: 753.6小时
- 虫号: 1333977
- 注册: 2011-06-29
- 专业: 环境工程
【答案】应助回帖
★ ★ ★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
880110sj: 金币+3, ★★★很有帮助, 谢谢您的意见，可能我还得要在论文中明确创新点，之前已经明确了contribution了 2013-09-07 12:09:43
880110sj: 回帖置顶 2013-09-09 07:28:15
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
880110sj: 金币+3, ★★★很有帮助, 谢谢您的意见，可能我还得要在论文中明确创新点，之前已经明确了contribution了 2013-09-07 12:09:43
880110sj: 回帖置顶 2013-09-09 07:28:15
|
字很多，没看完，大致意思看了 我觉得，论文第一要素还是创新点或者说自己的原创论点，自己写完觉得能打动自己，然后才有可能打动审稿人，如果自己都觉得一般般，那么悲剧的可能性会非常大了。 楼主写作能力算不错，看审稿人对写作评语都不差，还是建议楼主在原有的基础上深挖下看有没有可能提一些新颖点的结论出来，这应该有助于接收。 祝楼主下次好运 |
2楼2013-09-07 11:55:15
googleuboy
木虫 (知名作家)
- 应助: 747 (博后)
- 金币: 3118.8
- 散金: 4149
- 红花: 36
- 帖子: 6906
- 在线: 760.6小时
- 虫号: 1810740
- 注册: 2012-05-11
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 结构工程
【答案】应助回帖
★ ★ ★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
880110sj: 金币+3, ★★★很有帮助 2013-09-07 13:29:56
880110sj: 回帖置顶 2013-09-09 07:28:42
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
880110sj: 金币+3, ★★★很有帮助 2013-09-07 13:29:56
880110sj: 回帖置顶 2013-09-09 07:28:42
|
In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s) found at the bottom of this letter, your manuscript has been denied publication in ***. We all appreciate your efforts to improve the paper however it is still weak and for any future papers you should be sure to highlight the original elements of your work. For a paper to be published in our journal it must add significantly to the body of existing work. I think you need to take your research further and deeper. 主编觉得你的文章达不到他们的要求。个人觉得：哪怕你“还得要在论文中明确创新点”也没什么希望的，因为你要明确创新点这不难修改，困难的是评委都觉得你的文章很粗糙，细节不够（however it is quite descriptive and none of the software modules is described in details），创新点不够（ should further explain the novelty the developed modules and provide more details to allow a proper evaluation of their characteristics. ）。 早点换期刊投吧。 |
6楼2013-09-07 12:38:23
Champion!!!
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 27 (小学生)
- 金币: 2722.8
- 散金: 1477
- 红花: 4
- 帖子: 712
- 在线: 378小时
- 虫号: 2595355
- 注册: 2013-08-13
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 微生物生理与生物化学
13楼2013-09-07 14:16:00
oio14644
金虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 227 (大学生)
- 金币: 1008.7
- 散金: 200
- 红花: 20
- 帖子: 674
- 在线: 59.6小时
- 虫号: 2581217
- 注册: 2013-08-05
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 环境工程
3楼2013-09-07 11:57:20
4楼2013-09-07 12:10:45
jinwei331
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
- 应助: 3742 (副教授)
- 金币: 28683.7
- 红花: 73
- 沙发: 1
- 帖子: 26959
- 在线: 1170.4小时
- 虫号: 2085922
- 注册: 2012-10-25
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 机械测试理论与技术
5楼2013-09-07 12:20:47
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
7楼2013-09-07 12:47:27
huaxiduan
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
- 应助: 18 (小学生)
- 金币: 15470.9
- 红花: 3
- 帖子: 12389
- 在线: 200.9小时
- 虫号: 396692
- 注册: 2007-06-09
- 专业: 几何学
8楼2013-09-07 13:10:00
henrylc
金虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 590 (博士)
- 金币: 1208.4
- 散金: 5142
- 红花: 26
- 帖子: 988
- 在线: 329.8小时
- 虫号: 2126290
- 注册: 2012-11-14
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 机械动力学
9楼2013-09-07 13:15:02
10楼2013-09-07 13:31:18
