| 查看: 3243 | 回复: 18 | ||
| 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
有多少人是今天查系统知道结果的？
已经有17人回复
-
国自然面上复盘~欢迎讨论
已经有6人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.551.O.5.4,科目全,可伽急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有4人回复
-
基金不中，共勉
已经有5人回复
-
看板上这么多中的，有点像50人群里49个人都是骗子的那种感觉……
已经有3人回复
-
我不理解！
已经有23人回复
-
2026年的国家社科基金项目通讯评审的新规则与新动向、新挑战
已经有10人回复
-
系统查不到
已经有10人回复
-
怎么查啊
已经有5人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 大家看看APS期刊的审稿回复，这算是重投吗？
已经有90人回复
- 二区的，大修，有位审稿人怀疑数据算错了，结果还真算错了。怎么回应，求大神指点！
已经有106人回复
- 论文大修！审稿快是好事还是坏事呀！
已经有11人回复
- 这应该算是奇遇吧——审稿人变成了并列corresponding author。。。
已经有42人回复
- 在审稿中，预感要中，打算撤稿，因为我校sci列表中没有。
已经有8人回复
- 过了初审不交审稿费是不是就算自动退稿？
已经有11人回复
- 审稿人问TEM结果与XRD计算粒径不一致 如何回复
已经有24人回复
- 计算力学学报 审稿意见一个中文、一个英文，是否都可以用中文回答修改意见
已经有6人回复
- 能发工程类计算SCI，审稿周期快，较易发表的
已经有5人回复
- 计算化学类的SCI投稿投哪些审稿快呢？容易点的
已经有8人回复
- 大家讨论一下 审稿人 几天就返回审稿意见 该意见是好还是坏？？
已经有8人回复
- 补充下审稿意见，大家看看JACS申诉胜算多大？？
已经有15人回复
- LINUX的数据硬盘坏了，谁有什么好软件恢复？
已经有7人回复
- PRB这样的审稿意见算是大修还是小修？
已经有6人回复
- 谁贡献英文审稿意见模板一份，打算让作者小修。
已经有2人回复
- 论文投稿不到两星期，就返回一个审稿意见，是好消息还是坏消息？
已经有5人回复
- 求计算物理方面 对于审稿人意见的回复模板，
已经有21人回复
zhenwuhuang
至尊木虫 (文学泰斗)
- 应助: 4351 (副教授)
- 金币: 9821.3
- 散金: 1
- 红花: 137
- 帖子: 65966
- 在线: 2445.6小时
- 虫号: 2227382
- 注册: 2013-01-07
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 人类营养
7楼2014-06-15 15:14:22
zeuxisee
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 40 (小学生)
- 金币: 3392.5
- 散金: 10
- 红花: 5
- 帖子: 564
- 在线: 192.3小时
- 虫号: 839119
- 注册: 2009-09-03
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 金融学
2楼2014-06-15 11:30:09
easy880331
铁杆木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 3 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 7403.5
- 散金: 776
- 红花: 10
- 帖子: 567
- 在线: 469.2小时
- 虫号: 1384570
- 注册: 2011-08-30
- 专业: 信息安全
3楼2014-06-15 12:24:56
zeuxisee
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 40 (小学生)
- 金币: 3392.5
- 散金: 10
- 红花: 5
- 帖子: 564
- 在线: 192.3小时
- 虫号: 839119
- 注册: 2009-09-03
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 金融学
4楼2014-06-15 12:40:01
投票:
