| 查看: 5294 | 回复: 29 | ||
| 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 | ||
fatbone木虫 (小有名气)
|
[求助]
求助，投到IEEE GRSL的文章被Reject and Resubmit已有6人参与
|
|
|
投到IEEE GRSL的文章，初稿有四个审稿人。关于初稿，编辑给的结果是大修。在初稿的审稿意见中，第四个审稿人只提了一个很小的问题，所以编辑可能觉得没有必然再将修改稿返回给他评审。于是修改稿的审稿人就只剩原来四个审稿人中的前三个了。从下面的修改稿的审稿意见中看得出来，审稿人Reviewer 1和Reviewer 3已经没有什么大意见，相当于推荐发表了，可是审稿人Reviewer 2还是意见很大。于是最终编辑就给了“Reject and Resubmit”。其实编辑也说了，主要是因为某个审稿人意见大（Since the comments (in particular from one Reviewer) are not minor），就是指的Reviewer 2吧。郁闷！下面就把修改稿的审稿意见贴在下面。 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Mr.***: Your paper has been carefully reviewed by the GRSL review panel and found to be unacceptable in its present form. The reviewers did suggest, however, that if completely revised the paper might be found acceptable. We encourage you to revise and resubmit this manuscript as a new paper to GRSL. If you decide to resubmit, please use "Create a resubmission" link in your Author Center. Your resubmission is due by 23-Feb-2015. Below you will find comments from the review panel. Any attached files that may be referenced with these comments can be accessed in a copy of this decision letter located in your Author Center on ScholarOne Manuscripts. Sincerely, Prof. *** Editor-in-Chief, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters Associate Editor Comments: Associate Editor Comments to the Author: Your manuscript has been improved during this revision round. However, there are still serious concerns regarding the clarity and the experiments which still deserve to be considered. Since the comments (in particular from one Reviewer) are not minor, I am recommending a “Reject and Resubmit”. Please address all Reviewers’ comments carefully so that, in case you decide to resubmit it to GRSL, we can assign your manuscript to the same Reviewers. Reviewer(s) Comments: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author The paper has been quite improved. In the experimental analysis, other well-known approaches have been added for comparison. About this, I would probably choose to use the iterative versions of MAD and PCA algorithms, such as IR-MAD and IterativePCA, which have been proven to be more effective. I don't ask to put new experiments, but it would be interesting to see if the comparison with these techniques gives the same results of the previous one. Beside that, the Authors have responded adequately to my questions and I would recommend the paper for acceptance. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author The paper is slightly improved with respect to its previous version. However there are still several missing/incomplete/unclear information/sentences and experimental analysis are not convincing. The methodological part is not well-explained and very difficult to understand. My detailed comments are given below: 1-The proposed method is devoted to ***. However, the results are compared with the methods that assess ***. Thus, I think this comparison is not fair and also it is not clear how these methods are applied for the analysis in this paper. 2-The methods used for comparison are mostly for multispectral images. However, in the paper it is not clear to me how these methods are applied to the hyperspectral images for comparison purposes. Thus, again I found it very unfair to compare. 3-The methods considered are formulated in a very poor way, and there are still several symbols not defined. For example, the operations in (4), (5) and (6) are not defined and also N is set to both number of image pixels and number of images considered at the same time. 4-The data sets used are very simple and not enough to prove the effectiveness of the present work. In addition, the number of hyperspectral image bands and the data acquisition times are not mentioned. Reviewer: 3 Comments to the Author The conclusion should be reworked to highlight the current limitations of the algorithm (applied on a small area + high processing time) and future work directions shall mention these as axis of future research. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 初稿的审稿意见提的问题很多，我的response写了接近二十页。修改稿提交后，审了三个多月，现在审稿意见回来了，就贴在上面，比较少。算上初稿的第四个人审稿人，审稿人中的四分之三（也就是除了修改稿中的意见很大的审稿人Reviewer 2）都看懂了算法，也都认可了文章，基本上不大反对发表。可偏偏Reviewer 2还是觉得算法很难，看不懂。我是不知道他是真的看不懂，还是压根就没仔细看。现在编辑给了“Reject and Resubmit”，我想请教几个问题： 1）Reject and Resubmit的话，我是不是就不用或者不能写response了？因为我觉得意见很大的那个审稿人Reviewer 2可能没看懂文章或者没认真看，有些误会。例如在他的审稿意见中，第三条说 “N is set to both number of image pixels and number of images considered at the same time.”，实际上我仔细核对文章后确认我并没有犯这个错误，而且其他三个审稿人也没人认为有这种错误，还有他说“operations in (4), (5) and (6) are not defined”，其实公式(4)(5)(6)是教科书中就会讲的三个很普通的公式，真的没有什么好说的，而且IEEE GRSL有篇幅要求，真要展开讲，内容就超过期刊要求了。现在这个审稿人reviewer 2提出这些问题，我真是有点怀疑他可能是我比较的某个文章的作者，他觉得他的效果很不好，所以有些恼火。Reject and Resubmit的话，假如我不能response，就不能解释(毕竟有些解释的话不能写在文章中)，文章重新投稿后，编辑再让他审稿，看目前的架势，我还是死路一条。 2）初稿的审稿人是四个，而修改稿的审稿人是三个。我感觉修改稿的Reviewer 2不是初稿的Reviewer 2，很可能是初稿审稿人中的Reviewer 3，这个是我从审稿意见的语气和用词相似度推断出来的。请问这个我现在可以写信问编辑吗？我想看看修改稿的Reviewer 2是否是初稿审稿人的Reviewer 3，或者我想知道修改稿的Reviewer 2是对应初稿的哪个审稿人，然后结合他给的初稿的审稿意见再去修改文章。 3）问题有些老套，就是文章“Reject and Resubmit”后，还值得再投稿到IEEE GRSL吗？被接受的可能性如何呢？我问这个问题，一方面是因为毕竟IEEE GRSL这个期刊档次比较高，确实很难中，Resubmit的话，编辑明确说是“as a new paper to GRSL”；另一方面，我的时间真的等不起了！关于截止日期，编辑给的是“Your resubmission is due by 23-Feb-2015.”，这就基本上是五个月的时间，看样子即使Resubmit，我也不能太早提交上去，否则可能会被认为不认真对待不好好修改。 4）如果我重新将文章投稿到IEEE GRSL的话，是否可以申请回避修改稿中的这个意见很大的审稿人Reviewer 2呢？或者不再将稿件给这个人审稿呢？ 大家帮我看看好吗？恳请给我一些建议。 非常非常感谢！！！！！ |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
申请2024或2025年博士研究生
已经有12人回复
-
在大地上我们只过一生---看完我的阿勒泰上头了好几天，完结那天晚上几乎失眠
已经有13人回复
-
双非本科毕业论文，气人
已经有12人回复
-
化学B02口青基 代表作都是什么水平的？向大佬求助
已经有10人回复
-
每到中夜，情难自抑
已经有57人回复
-
化学口B0109(高分子合成)，拿青年基金一般需要怎样的文章水平？
已经有22人回复
-
每天学术时间不能保证，能保证的只有：
已经有10人回复
-
研0二导师分到新来的博士后靠谱吗
已经有7人回复
-
研究生在毕业答辩时挂了，遗憾
已经有13人回复
-
24年博士招生
已经有10人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 审稿人一个major revision，一个reject，编辑建议resubmit，大家遇到这个怎么处理？
已经有8人回复
- 请大家帮忙分析一下！第二次投稿，AE给reject，主编给major revision.
已经有13人回复
- reject resubmit,中间没有and。意思是“拒绝重新投稿”了吗？？
已经有11人回复
- 还是reject and resubmitted
已经有8人回复
- major revisions and resubmit，可是怎么回复审稿人呢？
已经有16人回复
- IET PE一篇，被reject and resubmit了，给了3个月时间，不知道还有没有希望了
已经有23人回复
- reject with resubmit 求助
已经有9人回复
- reject and resubmit，编辑没有给出具体的时间，是什么节奏？
已经有9人回复
- 投了一篇IJMPC的论文，第二次resubmit 中的几率大吗？
已经有3人回复
- Reject and Resubmit，大家有没有遇到这种情况？
已经有27人回复
- Reject with Resubmit 还有希望吗？
已经有9人回复
- Reject & Resubmit 大家看一下重投有机会吗
已经有4人回复
- 求助reject还是resubmit
已经有18人回复
- 审稿意见是 Reject and Resubmit 还有戏吗？
已经有30人回复
- GRSL从Major Revision到Reject and Resubmit，悲剧！
已经有5人回复
- Reject & Resubmit
已经有17人回复
- 这个算不算reject and resubmit?
已经有9人回复
- reject and resubmit
已经有12人回复
- Reject and Resubmit 接收率？
已经有13人回复
- 论文被Reject and Resubmit，给了四个月的修改时间，不知道希望大不大
已经有52人回复
- 关于reject and resubmit 的问题
已经有14人回复
- MMOR reject and resubmit
已经有15人回复
- Reject & Resubmit
已经有18人回复
- 求助 Reject and Resubmit
已经有6人回复
- 关于Reject and Resubmit？？？？？？
已经有12人回复
- reject and resubmit
已经有8人回复
【答案】应助回帖
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
fatbone: 金币+5, ★★★很有帮助, 谢谢您！ 2014-09-29 14:20:57
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
fatbone: 金币+5, ★★★很有帮助, 谢谢您！ 2014-09-29 14:20:57
| Reject and resubmit还是好好修改后继续投的好，毕竟你换其他的期刊也要差不多几个月的时间。此外，针对第二个reviewer，我认为还是应该认真的回复。他可以看不懂，但是你要解释到，没必要在文章中详细推导公式，最起码你可以指出公式可以从哪些文献中找到。另外，cover letter要重新写过，但是要说明之前投稿的ID，response也需要一一回复啊，不要编辑不说，你就啥都不敢提交了，你弄的仔细完善清楚了，编辑方便当然更容易接受，是吧？呵呵 |
» 本帖已获得的红花（最新10朵）
fatbone22楼2014-09-29 10:28:24
50