24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 4392  |  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

wrzhenhao

新虫 (初入文坛)

[求助] 这样的审稿意见,文章还有必要修改么 已有23人参与

Reviewer 1's Comments:
1. No contribution

2. The previous works are not got involved sufficiency.

3. The real design should be given

4. The comparison should be stated.

Reviewer 2's Comments:
The paper is not written comprehenssive manner. It has many grammetical errors. There is no match between simulated and measurements.

Reviewer 3's Comments:
1. This paper is based on the author's previous work compact CPW-Fed antenna printed on a single layer inexpensive FR4 substrate.  However, the author did not provide main physical analysis why they proposed to use such FR4 substrate other than inexpensive reason.

2. The author should provide more detain how the author use optimization to obtain the proper size of each element.

3. Comparison between the proposed work with their previous should be demonstrated and outlined the significant difference among the proposed work and others.

Reviewer 4's Comments:
The authors need to improve the gramma of the submitted manuscript. Technically, I also cannot recommend the publication of this paper with its current writing. The CPW fed UWB folded antenna has been discussed a lot. The contribution of the proposed topology by loading stubs along the feeds is not significant. Actually, some descriptions sound wrong technically.  

Four types of loading stubs are discussed, however, the second and third are exactly the same. The authors claimed that the loaded inductance will be increased for the first one, which is not correct. Because, if two shunt stubs are connected in parallel, the inductance will be reduced by half. Also, the quality of the figure drawing needs to be improved. On the other hand, I would like to suggest the authors to study the parasitic effects of this structures, which can help to understand the working principle of this monopole type antenna.
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐,对您同样有帮助:

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

自私的猫1988

荣誉版主 (文坛精英)

优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
看来文稿组织的不是一般的差,建议多看看同方向的论文怎么写的,参考一下
你即使不提交修改,改投其他期刊也差不多会返回这样的意见
所以根据意见好好修改吧
3楼2014-10-13 19:34:24
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 30 个回答

wjf266

铁杆木虫 (著名写手)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
貌似,一个意思。没有创新。
学费、生活费、车马费、烟酒费、娱乐费,TMD,人活着不容易
2楼2014-10-13 14:57:53
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

flowerrainhm

新虫 (正式写手)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
肯定要大改,审稿意见都这么差,如果不下决心狠狠修改的话,投啥都会被拒,其实不要怕被拒,但一定要好好修改。硬着头皮逼自己改。
4楼2014-10-13 20:57:58
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

jiabinlang

新虫 (正式写手)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
按这些意见改,总有接收的时候啦。四个审稿人真是挺多的哦,什么期刊啊?
5楼2014-10-13 21:04:38
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
信息提示
请填处理意见