24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

Y_L-USTC

银虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 1283.9
散金: 100
红花: 1
帖子: 43
在线: 174.8小时
虫号: 3358055
注册: 2014-08-08
性别: GG
专业: 通信理论与系统

[求助] 受到CL拒信（允许重传），信息太少，不知道审稿态度，这样重传后录取概率大吗？已有3人参与

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

Thank you for submitting your work to the IEEE Communications Letters.

Regards,
Bo Rong

Editor
IEEE Communications Letters

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author
Comments

Page 1, Line 44, Column 2: Replace ****** by ****** in all of the paper.
Page 2, Line 38, Column 1: Move the formula to the next line (as a separate line).
Page 2, Line 21, Column 2: Move the formula to the next line (as a separate line).
Page 4, Line 45, Column 2: Move the formula to the next line (as a separate line).
Page 4, Line 47, Column 2: Move the formula to the next line (as a separate line).
It is better to present simulation results.
Page 4, Line 36, Column 2: Add the following paper to the references list:
“******”

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author
This work studied the ******, and investigated its impact on the performance of ****** algorithms using ******. Though****** is a common mathematical method, the interesting part of this work comes from the modeling of ****** problem.

I basically agree with the solidity of this letter. However, I find some existing work in this research area has been missed. For example,

1) "******

This paper can be downloaded from
******

In fact, the authors didn't mention the previous publications about ****** on ******. For this reason, I feel difficult to judge the true novelty of this work. I mean, the authors should compare their schemes with the existing to clearly highlight the contribution of this work.

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

1楼 2014-09-09 13:48:58

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

Y_L-USTC

银虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 1283.9
散金: 100
红花: 1
帖子: 43
在线: 174.8小时
虫号: 3358055
注册: 2014-08-08
性别: GG
专业: 通信理论与系统

引用回帖:

10楼: Originally posted by zbking at 2014-12-04 22:12:55
楼主这篇文章的最终结果怎么样啊。。。...

二审审稿意见：

Bcc: Reviewers
--------------------------------
Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author
I find a significant improvement after the revision. However, I still have something to argue.

The title reveals this work is about 'XXX'. Has the proposed approach been verified by real network test or simulation tool such as OPNET?

I just feel the authors should present something that can give me more confidence of the result.

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author
I agree to accept this work for publication, as it addresses my previous comments well.