应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜    

小木虫论坛-学术科研互动平台 » 学术交流区 » 论文投稿 » 交流 » IEEE Comm. letter, rejected & resubmission allowed,修改稿可超四页吗？
51/1返回列表
查看: 3462  |  回复: 21
只看楼主@他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看
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

ssjcumt

新虫 (小有名气)

[交流] IEEE Comm. letter, rejected & resubmission allowed,修改稿可超四页吗？

按照审稿人要求感觉肯定四页不够用，修改稿可以超过四页吗？
如果改投，这种四五页的短文还有哪些杂志可以接收？请大神帮着推荐几家。
另外，这种 rejected & resubmissin有多大希望呢？

三个审稿人，一个意见是“the performance of the proposed protocol has to be compared with a benchmark scheme where the 。。。。。”，但是这个review要求进行对比的这个benchmark和我的虽然有点类似，但是其实没有什么可比性。
另外一个说我的其中一个参数假设的太理想化了，不太合理（其实我另外一篇也是这个假设，审稿人也没说什么），也提到了要我跟别人的方案去比较。
第三个审稿人意见特别多，写了两页，其他的问题都好回答，就其中一条比较难对付，是说我的为什么要这么做？方案为什么这么设计。其实没有办法证明这个方案最优，因为我是首先在这种实际环境下提方案的。

“研究有没有意义”这种问题，考虑角度不同，结论也不同。
请问大家，我这种情况，还有修改的价值么？感觉审稿人对我的研究领域还挺熟悉。像“the assumption seems too ideal.”，“the usefulness of the proposed protocol”这样的问题，应该从哪儿入手呢？



编辑来信如下：

Dear Author(s):

The review of the referenced manuscript, CL2015-2411, 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.

You may revise and resubmit your manuscript to IEEE Communications Letters. When you do so, please include a cover letter that indicates the new submission is a revision of an earlier manuscript and the reference number of that prior manuscript. Also include as a supporting document a point-by-point response to the comments of the reviewers and the editor. The responses to comments file must be uploaded in PDF format in the same section in your submission as the body of your paper in ScholarOne Manuscripts, and not under the cover letter.  Please also be aware that ALL submissions to IEEE Communications letters must complete the Electronic Copyright Process.

If you decide to resubmit your manuscript you should complete the resubmission through the Manuscript Central. Click on "Manuscripts with Decisions" under My Manuscripts on the left side of your Author Dashboard and then click on "Create a Resubmission" under the Actions Column next to your manuscript.

Your resubmission will be due within 75 days and is due on 10-Feb-2016. Please ensure that your revision is submitted in a timely manner as the web-based system will not allow a revision to enter the system after 75 days have elapsed. Please be aware that the time at which your revision permission will expire is 11:59 PM EST on the 75th day.

Note, that according to the IEEE COMML policy, the maximum number of permitted resubmissions after a Reject-Resubmission Allowed decision is one (1) and the maximum number of permitted Minor Revisions is (2).


Additional comments include:

I have been able to obtain 3 reviews for this manuscript. Although the reviewers agree that this is an interesting work, they nevertheless provide comments for improving the manuscript and pinpoint some issues that need to be addressed. Addressing the reviewers\' comments requires a major revision of the manuscript. For the potential resubmission, please provide point-to-point responses to all of the reviewers\' concerns, and modify the paper where necessary.

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

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

Regards,
Nikola Zlatanov

Editor
IEEE Communications Letters
  
Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author
This paper investigates the performance analysis of a practical tow-way protocol which takes a joint consideration of the finite relay buffer, signalling overhead and lossy link. The basis of analysis is a Markov chain model of the proposed protocol. The paper is well-written and the analyses sound.

The proposed protocol is very simple (which is good in part) and has to be compared with the best benchmark schemes in the literature. The author claim that the quality of the links are taken into account but it seems that the resulting contribution is very narrow in the proposed protocol. In fact, from Fig. 2, the relay always transmits if he has something in both queues. That is why the states (l,k) where both l and k are bigger than one do not exist. Therefore, the performance of the proposed protocol has to be compared with a benchmark scheme where the users and the relay are selected for transmission based on the qualities of the links (all states (l,k) are then present). It seems that reference [8] has already investigated this case for the ideal scenario where the signaling overhead is not taken into account. This protocol can serve at least as an upper bound.


Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author
This paper considers a practical two-way relay protocol and proposes a Markov chain model to analyze this protocol. The closed form expressions for the throughput and delay are derived. I have the following comments.
1. In Section II-A, the authors propose a practical BNC protocol. However, it seems to me that it is just a threshold-based scheduling policy, where the threshold is 1 packet. The process of this protocol, e.g., waiting time slots, ACK/NACKs, is only an implementation of the threshold-based policy. Moreover, why the threshold is chosen to be 1 packet? Intuitively, the threshold should be chosen based on the link quality statistics, i.e., the successful packet rate in this manuscript. In addition, the Markov chain model and the analysis in the following sections highly depend on the protocol with this particular threshold. Therefore, the usefulness of the proposed protocol and the analysis in this manuscript appears to be questionable.
2. The authors state that they consider overflow probabilities in the abstract, the last paragraph in Section III, and the conclusion. However, throughout this manuscript, I cannot find any discussion or analysis about buffer overflow, which is an important issue in finite buffer systems. Actually, from the transition probability in Eq. (2), we can see that the impact of buffer overflow is ignored。
3. According the BNC protocol and the Markov chain in Fig. 2, there are only 2(L+K) states. However, in Eq. (5), (7), and Eq. (8), it appears to me that the authors consider (L+1)×(K +1) states. Please clarify it.
4.这一条是要我证明一个公式。很容易就证明了。
5. Minor comments:
1) In the introduction, the definition of BNC and the difference between BNC and PNC are not clearly illustrated.
2) In Section II-A, the authors consider packet transmission, however, using the XOR operation in bit layer, i.e., BNC. Please clarify this confusion.
3) In Page 6/11, Line 14, what is the meaning of traditional scheduling?
4) In Section II-B, what is the duration of a time slot? Do you consider a slotted system? This should be introduced in Section II-A.
5) In Fig. 2, the two rightmost states in the first and second lines should be (0,K) and (1, K).
6) In Page 7/11, Line 34, the definitions of SiU and SiR can hardly be understood.
7) In Eq. (4), what are the state spaces of i and j?
8) In Page 7/11, Line 48, please specify the location of the method in [10].
9) In Page 8/11, Line 18, the definition of the throughput is missing.
10) In Page 8/11, Line 18 and Line 24, what are the meanings of the duration of each packet and the average duration of one packet?
11) Section III is not well organized. I suggest the authors to summarize the results for the symmetric case in a lemma.
12) In Eq. (18), what is the summation taken over?

Reviewer: 3

Comments to the Author
This paper studied two-way relay channel with finite relay buffer using Markov model.

However, the following questions should be carefully revised.  

First, a lot of  works investigated  the  buffering with network coding by using Markov method.   So the differences of the work compared with existing ones should be clearly summarized in order to outline the contribution of the paper.

Second, it is assumed that A and B has infinite buffer and always has data to be transmitted. Compared with some existing works, where the sources were assumed with  finite buffer or with some stochastic data arriving,  the assumption in this paper seems too ideal.

Thirdly, more simulation results on comparison with other  protocols with network coding and buffering should be provided.

Fourthly, the protocol in this paper should be described more clearly.  For example, the description of “In contrast to the traditional scheduling, the scheduling messages in this protocol are replaced by the waiting timeslot, and
the ACK/NACKs from R  to A  and B  are piggybacked by the next packets. These can save a considerable signaling overhead (the preamble).”  is not clear enough.
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:
1楼2015-12-02 17:07:01
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

匿名

用户注销 (著名写手)
★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
本帖仅楼主可见
赞一下
3楼2015-12-02 19:31:33
 已阅   申请SEPI   回复此楼   编辑   查看我的主页
查看全部 22 个回答

whcyb

木虫 (小有名气)
★ ★ ★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
ssjcumt: 金币+2, 大修已经回来了，现在在小修中 2016-02-02 17:50:56
这种情况就是大修，好好改会接收的，建议改后重投

发自小木虫Android客户端
赞一下(2人) 回复此楼
落了的东西得落下才知道落下了
2楼2015-12-02 17:42:52
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

ssjcumt

新虫 (小有名气)
引用回帖:
3楼: Originally posted by zhangtt2012 at 2015-12-02 19:31:33
不能超过4页。4页说不清楚的话，趁早改投。

resubmission的时候，还是单双栏都要有吧？（单栏便于审稿，双栏是正式的）。
假如我为了压缩到四页，而把一些段落进行精简压缩，那么这些变动（不是response），还需要注明吗？
如果需要注明的话，是在response文档里面呢，还是cover letter里面呢？因为这些变动不是针对某一个reviewer的。
另外，针对reviewer的response需要在原文中hightlight吗？比如红色字体之类的。
赞一下 回复此楼
4楼2015-12-02 20:13:17
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

ssjcumt

新虫 (小有名气)
引用回帖:
3楼: Originally posted by zhangtt2012 at 2015-12-02 19:31:33
不能超过4页。4页说不清楚的话，趁早改投。

按照reviewer的意见进行修改后也就五页，发正式的journal还是不行，能推荐个接收这种短文的期刊吗？多谢了。改投的话就不考虑其中不合理的comments了，四页也是放得下。
我不想花精力去扩充了，现在正在写大论文。
赞一下 回复此楼
5楼2015-12-02 20:19:21
 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 22 个回答
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫 高级回复(可上传附件)
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭