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 » 这样的审稿意见算好算坏？该如何回答？
52/1返回列表
查看: 3284  |  回复: 18
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

easy880331

铁杆木虫 (正式写手)

[求助] 这样的审稿意见算好算坏？该如何回答？ 已有9人参与

The paper requires a very thorough proof-reading and editing. The quality of written English is poor throughout and causes great difficulty in reading; it descends into unreadable in several section.

Significantly, it is not entirely clear what the contribution of this paper (or its contained work) is. Clearly, effort has been devoted to experimentation work, but the notion of the proposed method seems little different to existing work in the subject, such as Kim and Kim, "Load balancing algorithm of parallel vision processing system forreal-time navigation", 2000. Admittedly, this is to a different end, but the approach seems broadly similar.
Nair et al, "The randomness in randomizedload balancing", 2001 discuss similar issues and propose a broadly similar (though admittedly, distinct!) approach.
It would be useful if the authors could properly compare and contrast with existing MEM-based approaches to load balancing and clearly identify:
a) the developments and/or differences between your work and existing work
b) difficulties faced in developing the experimental testbed, and an assessment of difficulties envisaged in transposing the experimental work to real-world situations
If it transpires that the underlying theoretical approach is little different to existing work, then focus should be moved to the developments required to move this work from theory into experimental practice.

This work seems broadly similar to existing work - in approach, if not
application.
It is very possible that the work has developed or refined it further.
However, I can find no reference or meaningful discusison to any similar
existing work, which raises my suspicions that this is little more than a representation
of existing work.
The experimentation work does appear to be novel, so I'm not necessarily
suggesting that the paper is dishonest, but that to gain credence, it is well
worth acknowledging existing MEM approaches to Load Balancing and
either explaining the implementation-specific concerns / differences /
developments, or the further research undertaken to refine and/or develop
these approaches for the target domain.
I would not consider it suitable for publication until these issues have been
addressed and until the quality of written English is vastly improved

大家帮我看看这个审稿人的审稿意见是好是坏？我改如何回复他，如何修改？第一次投稿没有经验，多谢大家了，如中散尽金币回谢！
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢
1楼 2014-06-15 11:18:03
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

easy880331

铁杆木虫 (正式写手)
引用回帖:
13楼: Originally posted by poordoctor at 2014-06-17 15:01:06
没有遇到这么好的编辑，基本上都是两句客套话后据稿。楼主遇到这么好的编辑，一定要抓住机会！！！

这是审稿人。。。
回复此楼
16楼2014-06-18 00:19:50
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 19 个回答

zeuxisee

木虫 (正式写手)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与，应助指数 +1
不太乐观，语言不够好，有的部分他看不懂，这编辑很负责，有的编辑写到这里就感谢你然后拒稿了。方法他觉得没创新，结论却和别人不同，他质疑。建议你第一件事看一下他给你的参考文献，确认你的论文在别人的基础上有创新，不是重复性工作。第二，如果有创新，要在文章中更显眼更详尽的说明。第三，如果结论不同，肯定要解释为何不同，是你错了还是别人错了，还是方法创新的结果。如果楼主能解决以上问题，再送出去做个校对，然后再发。

[ 发自手机版 http://muchong.com/3g ]
赞一下(3人) 回复此楼
2楼2014-06-15 11:30:09
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

easy880331

铁杆木虫 (正式写手)
引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by zeuxisee at 2014-06-15 11:30:09
不太乐观，语言不够好，有的部分他看不懂，这编辑很负责，有的编辑写到这里就感谢你然后拒稿了。方法他觉得没创新，结论却和别人不同，他质疑。建议你第一件事看一下他给你的参考文献，确认你的论文在别人的基础上有 ...

恩，多谢你的回答，对我很有帮助，只是时间上有点短，只给了两周的修改时间，你有推荐的润色的地方啊？
赞一下 回复此楼
3楼2014-06-15 12:24:56
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

zeuxisee

木虫 (正式写手)

【答案】应助回帖

引用回帖:
3楼: Originally posted by easy880331 at 2014-06-15 12:24:56
恩，多谢你的回答，对我很有帮助，只是时间上有点短，只给了两周的修改时间，你有推荐的润色的地方啊？...

我用过elsevier的，质量还行，但太慢，你还是用别的吧。我看前面有个推荐润色公司的帖子。

[ 发自手机版 http://muchong.com/3g ]
赞一下 回复此楼
4楼2014-06-15 12:40:01
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 19 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