24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 1659  |  回复: 5
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

wangyslyh

金虫 (初入文坛)

[求助] 小白初投CL被拒(允许重投),求大神帮忙看看再投希望大吗? 已有2人参与

Dear Author(s):

The review of the referenced manuscript, CL2014-*, is now complete. I regret to inform you that based on the enclosed reviews and my own reading of your manuscript, I am unable to recommend its publication in IEEE Communications Letters.

After reading the whole paper,  although the main idea is clearly presented, I don't find a great enthusiasm for recommending this paper for publication in its current form. Indeed, the contribution of this paper is unclear compared to existing works in the literature. Besides, the objective function adopted in the paper requires more explanation.  Furthermore,  the presentation styles need to be improved. It is for these reasons that I cannot accept the paper in its current form.
Suggestion: Reject and Resubmission is Allowed

Major comments:

[1] The physical meaning of the objective function in equation (1) is not clear to me.  In particular, * which needs more explanation. Besides,  please indicates the unit of variable y since * .
[2] It is known that when the EE maximized, it's possible that the system data rate can be very low . Thus, in the literature, minimum system data rate requirement is added as a constraint to the problem formulation.
[3] The current * algorithm achieves a stationary point.  However , it's unclear what is the *.  
[4] In a two-tier network, how do you*?
[5] what is *?

Minor  comments:
[1] all the log function should be base 2.
[2] After equation (5), W is used as subcarrier bandwidth. However, W is used as total system bandwidth in the simulation section.
[3] Please pay attention on the font type: say in equation (1), the font type of "maximize"
[4] Please put the optimization variables under the "maximize" operator.

You may revise and resubmit your manuscript to IEEE Communications Letters.

Additional comments include:
The reviewers' comments are found at the end of this email.

Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
In this paper, the authors proposed to use* to solve the problem of *. They tried to *. Based on my review, I have the following comments:
1. In Introduction, the authors should specify the differences between this work and existing ones, and then summarize the contributions of this work.
2. The authors should discuss more about the implementation issues, such as the distributed implementation manner as the authors claimed.
3. More explanation should be given to the simulation results, not just tell what we can see in the figures.

Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
This letter studies *, which is an important and timely topic. The quality of presentation is good and generally the paper is well-written. However, I have two basic concerns.
1) Why do you need the metric in (P1) to motivate*? According to the reviewer's opinion * is not a straightforward objective and must be explained better.
2) Please compare your work with [6] in the introduction, since the objective and the analysis followed in this work is similar to yours.
Moreover, please add numbers to all the equations in order to facilitate the readers to refer to them.
Also, add the following reference:
***, vol. 1, no.1, June 2014

Reviewer: 3
Comments to the Author
This paper studies *. The *, the optimal solution to which is rigorously characterized. This paper is well-written and technically sound.
One suggestion is on further explanation on the objective functions of P1, P2 and Pk.  From the title and abstract, it can be seen that * is the aim of this work; and exactly the objective function of P1 is *. However, P1 is not the problem to be solved in this paper, and the actual objective functions of the*. This could lead the audience to an impression that energy-efficiency is not really the objective.
Another suggestion is to number all equations.
回复此楼
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

wangyslyh

金虫 (初入文坛)

引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by muchongwoai at 2014-07-20 13:15:26
这种情况下最后被录用的文章也很多,因为往往这种情况下,还是同样的主编,同样的审稿人,跟大修的最大差别是重新给了稿号。祝福你,好好修改,感觉主编好像是你的小同行啊。

谢谢回复,主编r应该是同行,觉得3个审稿人可能还好,但这个主编好像比较难搞。
3楼2014-07-20 14:57:24
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 6 个回答

muchongwoai

至尊木虫 (著名写手)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
这种情况下最后被录用的文章也很多,因为往往这种情况下,还是同样的主编,同样的审稿人,跟大修的最大差别是重新给了稿号。祝福你,好好修改,感觉主编好像是你的小同行啊。
努力不一定成功,但放弃一定失败
2楼2014-07-20 13:15:26
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

ll550

木虫 (职业作家)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
editor给你机会了那就好好改吧。

[ 发自小木虫客户端 ]
livelong
4楼2014-07-20 16:09:55
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

zhanghx561

银虫 (小有名气)

都外审了,而且还不是很抓狂的审稿意见
就好好修改再投过去
5楼2014-07-20 16:13:32
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
最具人气热帖推荐 [查看全部] 作者 回/看 最后发表
[基金申请] 国合现在查不到了吗? +8 chengyan1220 2026-08-24 16/800 2026-08-26 08:50 by paperzjh
[基金申请] 牛来!米来!面来! +8 beefly 2026-08-26 8/400 2026-08-26 08:37 by xuzhipiao
[基金申请] 2026年8月25日国自然放榜前突然收到列入评审专家邮件,有关系吗? +24 木水思豆 2026-08-25 27/1350 2026-08-26 08:26 by yanchen918
[考研] 售SCI一区T0P文章,我:8.O.55.1.O.5.4,科目全,可+急 +3 7K1CJE38xLG4 2026-08-25 5/250 2026-08-26 07:17 by cNXvBfCpiZOM
[公派出国] 售SCI一区文章,我:8.O.551.O.5.4,科目全,可伽急 +3 PbwVEMK5haaE 2026-08-25 6/300 2026-08-26 06:57 by cNXvBfCpiZOM
[论文投稿] 售SCI一区T0P文章,我:8O.55.1.O.5.4,科目齐全,可+急 +3 7K1CJE38xLG4 2026-08-25 4/200 2026-08-26 02:04 by cNXvBfCpiZOM
[基金申请] 今天务委会开完了,明天出结果吗 +18 angus9576 2026-08-25 22/1100 2026-08-26 00:41 by merchancy
[基金申请] 在坚冰还盖着北海的时候,我看到了怒放的梅花。 (金币+10) +6 ziyangfang 2026-08-25 9/450 2026-08-25 20:26 by huagongfeihu
[基金申请] 有没有大神帮我看看基金代码 28+4 1234567wang 2026-08-24 10/500 2026-08-25 19:15 by lfy8008
[基金申请] 放榜前的不淡定 20+4 snowwithsea 2026-08-19 19/950 2026-08-25 17:57 by chick875
[基金申请] 某些机构,以效率低为荣,以效率低作为存在感 +9 yuleib84 2026-08-25 10/500 2026-08-25 17:14 by alexon
[基金申请] 没有任何消息-是不是就凉了 +9 图啦图啦 2026-08-24 10/500 2026-08-25 11:59 by 南海小哥
[基金申请] 人气不行了 +11 fansofjerry 2026-08-21 11/550 2026-08-25 11:04 by 孤独的英雄6
[基金申请] 我面上完蛋了 +13 且听虎啸 2026-08-20 14/700 2026-08-25 09:10 by mrkang
[基金申请] 只有每年这种时候来逛逛小木虫 +25 yaoyewhu2008 2026-08-20 27/1350 2026-08-25 08:01 by Equinoxhua
[基金申请] filecode,4个jtjc了 +14 ziyangfang 2026-08-19 17/850 2026-08-24 18:37 by 哈哈蛤?
[基金申请] 时间戳今天,20号变了 +5 archvillain 2026-08-20 5/250 2026-08-22 06:12 by hui_daxiao
[基金申请] 看来今天不会放榜了? +8 chengyan1220 2026-08-21 11/550 2026-08-21 17:52 by dcqxinyang
[基金申请] 应该是下周三26日公布了吧? +4 哈哈蛤? 2026-08-21 4/200 2026-08-21 10:58 by Vivilian
[基金申请] 今天放榜没戏了吧 +9 yuleib84 2026-08-19 11/550 2026-08-21 10:06 by gltch
信息提示
请填处理意见