| 查看: 3897 | 回复: 5 | ||
| 【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者smallmice将赠送您 5 个金币 | ||
| 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 | ||
[求助]
投了ICL给了rejected-and-resubmission allowed的意见，求助大牛们怎么看 已有2人参与
|
||
|
编辑意见是这样的 The review of the referenced manuscript, CL2015-2386, 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 14-Feb-2016. Please ensure that your revision is submitted in a timely manner as the webbased 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: The paper was evaluated by three independent reviewers who pointed out several issues to be addressed and/or clarified. The authors should revise the paper accordingly in a possible resubmission. Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author IEEE Communications Letters In theory, this Letter gives a good solution to the resource allocation problem usually occurred in the context of cognitive multi-pair relaying transmission, by use of a similar optimisation strategy to those widely used for sub-carrier allocation in multi-user ODFM context (although the cost function varies). In practice, however, how to find a so-called "central controller, which collects all the required information", as claimed by the authors at the end of Section II? Especially, in a large cognitive networks with mobile users, how can a central controller (even if it exists like a genius), how can it determine which users should be grouped to jointly perform Tx power allocation? Similarly, which relays should be chosen as a potential group used to serve the aforementioned users? With such regards, the reviewer does not believe that such a central resource allocation strategy is of any practical interest in real wireless systems. Instead, some distributed strategies are more promising. On the other hand, to better demonstrate the necessity of such complex resource-allocation operations, could the authors compare the end-to-end performance, e.g., in terms of sum date rate of secondary transmission, between the proposed transmission scheme and the simplest scheme with fixed power allocation and random relay selection? Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author In this article, the authors investigate the resource optimization problem for the multi-user multi-relay decode-forward (DF) cognitive radio networks. The reviewer has the following concerns: 1)The authors should include the structure of the document. 2)The reviewer thinks that it would be important to explain the reason why these parameters results were chosen. Also, the authors should include references of articles that consider the discrete particle swarm optimization (DPSO) algorithm and the traditional water-filling (TWF) algorithm in cognitive radio. 3)The authors should explain better the metric bandwidthpower product (BPP). How the use of this metric improves the spectrum efficiency? 4)The authors created so much variables, it is hard to follow the sequence through the paper. The authors should review all the text and try to write the article with the minimum of variables. For instance, the authors use R^{n}_{m,k}, c_m, c for the transmission rate.、 5)The authors should explain better the arrangement of the nodes in the network. It is hard to see the localization of the nodes with a expression as "3+0.2×rand[0, 1]". 6)What is the value of R_{max} in the numerical results? 7)Are the parameters of the numerical results normalized? What is the unit of the metric bandwidthpower product (BPP)? Is the rate requirement c in bpcu or bps? 8)How is the results for a scenario where the primary receivers accept a great quantity of interference? For instance with I_{th} = 15 dB. 9) The equation (11) must be rewritten, because for c different of one, the supposition is not valid. The authors should write the variable w_{m,k} as (P_{sm}+P_k)/((2^c- 1)sigma^2), so the equation is valid independently of sigma and c. Reviewer: 3 Comments to the Author The authors applied bandwidth-power product as a metric of optimization and use joint optimal relay matching and greedy resource allocation (JRMRA) algorithm as a solution. I am not sure about the novelty of the proposed optimization and the proposed solution. In general the paper is well written and helps the researcher in this field. I did some search and I found the following paper, [R1] at the bottom, which is very close to this work, however the authors did not clarify their novelty to this work in the introduction section. In some parts it is a straightforward extension to [R1] Also I have found the following paper, [R2], also the authors did shoe their contribution over it. In general the paper is well written and helps the researcher in this field. 总体来说，第一个reviewer意见太犀利，第二个提的是细节性东西比较好回答，第三个对创新性提出了质疑，各位大牛们觉得有没有重投的必要 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
考研调剂
已经有12人回复
-
085500求调剂材料
已经有5人回复
-
化学工程调剂289
已经有40人回复
-
一志愿双非085400电子信息344 求调剂，对材料和化学方向也感兴趣
已经有8人回复
-
308求调剂
已经有17人回复
-
080100力学316求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
材料专硕调剂
已经有17人回复
-
293调剂
已经有23人回复
-
材料类284调剂
已经有36人回复
-
285求调剂
已经有14人回复
5楼2015-12-04 08:51:40
ise_support 
捐助贵宾 (小有名气)
- 应助: 19 (小学生)
- 金币: 296.3
- 散金: 3120
- 红花: 13
- 帖子: 194
- 在线: 217.1小时
- 虫号: 3151708
- 注册: 2014-04-21
- 专业: 外国语言
|
2点拙见 1，这篇文章已经不能重投，这个期刊已经拒稿。只能改投。 2，这个期刊建议改投的期刊出版的应该是letter形式，作者是否能接受？能的话，按照审稿意见修改后可以改投。 发自小木虫IOS客户端 |
2楼2015-12-03 22:15:33
zbconquer
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 77 (初中生)
- 金币: 1901.1
- 散金: 1105
- 红花: 25
- 帖子: 843
- 在线: 411.7小时
- 虫号: 693619
- 注册: 2009-01-16
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 通信理论与系统
3楼2015-12-04 00:51:57
4楼2015-12-04 08:51:19
