| 查看: 1660 | 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» 猜你喜欢
科研孤儿太难了
已经有20人回复
-
项目信息和经费信息在系统里都可以看到了
已经有13人回复
-
国际合作可查了，中了面上
已经有10人回复
-
国合里面能看到了
已经有5人回复
-
学生撞见辅导员送外卖，第二天全班都沉默了
已经有3人回复
-
出来了
已经有8人回复
-
国合现在查不到了吗？
已经有20人回复
-
牛来！米来！面来！
已经有8人回复
-
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？
已经有27人回复
-
范进中举一文的中心思想
已经有9人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 小白求问大神，外文文献都用什么搜索
已经有7人回复
- 小白设计师求材料大神帮忙，有没有材料能做这个插排
已经有4人回复
- 数学小白求助，解超定非线性方程组，求大神帮忙
已经有4人回复
ll550
木虫 (职业作家)
- 应助: 259 (大学生)
- 金币: 4586.3
- 散金: 230
- 红花: 34
- 帖子: 3331
- 在线: 767小时
- 虫号: 3180771
- 注册: 2014-05-05
- 专业: 马、恩、列、斯思想研究
4楼2014-07-20 16:09:55
muchongwoai
至尊木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 175 (高中生)
- 金币: 13268.8
- 散金: 200
- 红花: 10
- 帖子: 1298
- 在线: 687.4小时
- 虫号: 1137313
- 注册: 2010-11-02
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 煤炭地下开采
2楼2014-07-20 13:15:26
wangyslyh
金虫 (初入文坛)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1056.6
- 帖子: 42
- 在线: 12.8小时
- 虫号: 2081489
- 注册: 2012-10-23
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 通信理论与系统
3楼2014-07-20 14:57:24
zhanghx561
银虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 14 (小学生)
- 金币: 667.9
- 红花: 2
- 帖子: 173
- 在线: 156.9小时
- 虫号: 1207398
- 注册: 2011-02-20
- 专业: 植物进化生物学
5楼2014-07-20 16:13:32
28