24小时热门版块排行榜    

CyRhmU.jpeg
查看: 2817  |  回复: 22

wen0081

新虫 (初入文坛)

[求助] 第一次投sci,大家帮我看看这样的初审意见有希望吗已有1人参与

Manuscript ID JAERO-13-0164 entitled "Bank-to-Turn Command Calculation and Singularity Control Strategy For Agile Missile" which you submitted to Journal of Aerospace Engineering, has been reviewed.  The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

The reviewer(s) have recommended major revisions to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript. May I also draw your attention to the attached Editorial Checklist as the issues should also be addressed when preparing for submission of your amended version.
第一个审稿
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
This is an original contribution to the field of GNC. Please revise English, and provide some more implementation details of the guidance scheme, simulation model used in the simulations, seeker model details, and assumptions.
第二个审稿
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
In this paper, a new relative BTT-90 logic is given by using the roll-angle increment command. The paper also deals with the different BTT commands calculation strategy to suit different BTT situations of the guidance process. The followings should be concerned by the authors to improve the paper.
1、There are some obvious mistakes of words. The 11th word “approach” in page1line19 should be “approaches”. The 11th word “command” in page6line29 should be “commands”. There are still some words which are misused in this paper. The author could revise the paper carefully.
2、The description of the equation (6) is not clear. The guidance commands, a_yc and a_zc , get smaller in the endgame as it is showed in Fig.1(a). So the deta_gamma_bc_max gets smaller and the a_zbc* gets bigger. Then how to ensure the sideslip angle in the permitted range.
3、In Fig.16, the trajectories seemed to be very similar and can not show advantages of the new strategy in engineering applications. The author can update the figures to show the differences and advantages of the new strategy.
主编的
The paper is interesting but the authors need to further discuss the approach and the results
这个interesting的评价是积极的还是普通。小弟第一次写sci,各位高人给指点一下,谢谢

[ 发自手机版 http://muchong.com/3g ]
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:

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
回帖支持 ( 显示支持度最高的前 50 名 )

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
major revisions 大修。好好按审稿意见修改,希望是很大的。
2楼2013-10-31 21:28:28
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

luobin506

禁虫 (著名写手)

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
本帖内容被屏蔽

7楼2013-10-31 22:07:39
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
普通回帖

successfulsbl

木虫 (职业作家)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
有希望,好好改一改。
3楼2013-10-31 21:31:13
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

youyouyanr

铁虫 (著名写手)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
只要好好改 就会接受

[ 发自手机版 http://muchong.com/3g ]
认真交流
4楼2013-10-31 21:33:08
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

dong1059

木虫 (著名写手)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
整体来看,审稿人和编辑对这篇文章的创新性和思路是很肯定的。只不过楼主还需要在问题的具体阐述及语言上下点功夫。换句话说,就是骨架是好的,但还缺点血肉哈。楼主按照审稿人的意见好好修改,尽量找导师商量商量,接收的可能性很大;但绝不能掉以轻心。祝福楼主!加油!
5楼2013-10-31 21:41:55
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

XDxiaohu

木虫 (知名作家)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
好好修改吧,不过貌似对楼主的英语颇有说辞,找个English好点儿的给看看
楼主专业有点儿强大啊,祝好~
西藏--与神耳语的地方
6楼2013-10-31 21:56:46
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

zkk04

银虫 (初入文坛)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
好好改改内容,花点钱找润色公司或英语nb的朋友改一改,最好母语的,然后问题就不大了。
急事请邮件:zkk04@qq.com
8楼2013-10-31 22:10:36
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

jinwei331

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
挺有希望的,按修改意见逐条好好修改。
9楼2013-10-31 22:13:05
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

wen0081

新虫 (初入文坛)

谢谢各位,对自己的英语确实没信心,准备找论文润色公司。有好的推荐的吗?

[ 发自手机版 http://muchong.com/3g ]
10楼2013-11-01 06:35:55
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 wen0081 的主题更新
信息提示
请填处理意见