| 查看: 3717 | 回复: 13 | |||
| 【有奖交流】积极回复本帖子，参与交流，就有机会分得作者 吼一刺儿 的 10 个金币 | |||
[交流]
IEEE trans on Power Delivery 一审意见，大修还是小修？接受的倾向怎么样？
|
|||
|
Dear Authors: Based on peer reviews, we have determined that your paper might be of interest for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery after revisions that have properly addressed the concerns of the reviewers and editor. Please note that this is NOT a conditional acceptance of your paper and the revised version could still be rejected. It is, rather, recognition by our reviewers and editors that your paper merits further consideration. Please pay attention to the following when preparing and submitting your revision: 1. You shall submit your revision within 6 weeks (for first revision) or 4 weeks (for subsequent revisions). Under exceptional cases, you may be granted an extension. 2. Please implement as many improvements as possible in the revised paper following the reviewers’ comments, as the future readers will only have access to your paper, not your response to the reviewers. You must mark changes made in a DIFFERENT COLOUR to facilitate the next round of review. 3. In addition, you shall submit a response to the reviewer comments. It is important to address each comment POINT-BY-POINT in your response file and to cover all the comments. If you don’t agree with some of the comments, please present your reasons to convince the reviewers. 4. You may use the cover letter to provide confidential comments to the editor under some exceptional cases. For example, there is a fundamental disagreement with a reviewer’s comments and you are not comfortable to share your concerns with the reviewer. If you decide to provide confidential comments, indicate in your regular response file that you have additional comments to the editor in the cover letter. You may color this statement so that the editor can identify it easily. 5. You are recommended not to exceed 8 pages for the revised version. In the event you have to use more pages to address reviewer comments properly, you can add a maximum of two extra pages. Please provide a justification for the extra pages in your response file. Under no circumstances a revision can have more than 10 pages. 6. Comments in the form of attachments may not be sent by this email sometimes. So please check the account of submitting author for additional comments. If you only find comments from 1 or 2 reviewers for a R0 version paper, you may write to EIC to check if the comments are misplaced by the reviewer. 7. PWRD editorial board discourages multi-rounds of revisions. It is the responsibility of the authors to bring a paper to acceptable level within one or two rounds of reviews. The reviewers have no obligation to improve a paper for the authors. More information can be found from https://sites.ieee.org/tpwrd/ Finally, I would like to encourage you to contribute to PWRD paper review in the future. Note that three or four volunteer reviewers have made it possible for your paper to be processed by the editorial board. Please don’t reply to this email unless you have specific questions requiring my attention. Sincerely yours, Prof. Wilsun Xu Editor-in-Chief, Transactions on Power Delivery COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS: Editor-in-Chief's Comments: Editor Editor Comments for Author: Give adequate answer to each one of questions raised by Reviewers. The manuscript must be corrected by someone proficient in English grammar. Reviewers' Comments: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author The article is written in an academic manner, it does not include a feasibility study and the evaluation of the developed method accuracy. The second optimization criterion (risk function (7)) is based on unreliable data therefore the absence of accuracy analysis makes all optimization results unreliable. Paragraph IV – Methodology and especially its parts C and D (pages 4-5) are written in too mathematical manner which looks heavy in a technical paper. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author 1. This manuscript proposed multi-objective optimization model to solve the problem that is innovative, but it is worth discussing that whether each parameter is easy to obtain. 2. There are too many abbreviations created by authors own in this manuscript Reviewer: 3 Comments to the Author The authors present an optimization approach for DC deicing of transmission lines. The approach appears interesting, but some issues exist and require changes: 1. English is poor in places or non descriptive. The entire paper should be heavily revised for language. A. "The de-icing scheme 1 is shown in Fig. 4. It endeavors to avoid over design problem for determining the value of ice thickness." AA. "the over design problem"? AAA. What exactly is the "over design" problem? This term is never mentioned before in the paper... B. IV.E needs appropriate indention... C. "For the area of Southern China which often encounters ice disasters and has DC de-icing devices well equiped, the proposed de-icing outage optimal scheduling management framework is an effective tool to help the anti-ice work." CC. This is 2015, there is NO excuse for misspellings of common words, "equiped" since modern word processors and even web browsers automatically highlight these, and frequently automatically change them. CCC. "DC de-icing devices well equipped" means what? well versus non-well equipped? equipped vs not equipped? or what? 2. The flowchart in figure 2 is an excellent addition. However it is not that useful in its current state since components of the flowchart are not consistently named with sections of the text. The authors should link this back to the section of the text where each component is introduced. Hence the block for "Predict ice thickness of all icing lines" should be "Predict ice thickness of all icing lines (III.A)" and so on for all blocks. 3. The authors state "Fig.1 illustrates the proposed framework for de-icing scheduling management." but then Figure 2 shows a flowchart for transmission lines de-icing outage scheduling (TLDOS) system. A. This reviewer assumes that Figure 2 is contained in a block in Figure 1, this should be noted. The TLDOS flowchart should be indicated in Figure 1. B. Block 2 of TLDOS "Predict ice thickness of all icing lines" and Block 2-4 (e.g. "Transmission lines icing forecast"  of Figure 1 appear redundant. Shouldn't this icing information therefore be an input to the flowchart in Figure 2? C. The authors should link this back to the section of the text where each component is introduced. 4. Some aspects of the conclusions are not as valid as they could be. The authors state "The ITPV is 10.9mm, which is far away from 15mm and little larger than that in scheme 2." However, this solution is an estimate and thus a confidence interval would exist for it. A. All of these ITPV results are very close (the EENS results are similarly close too) and thus without confidence intervals, it is hard to tell how much "better" any one solution is... B. The authors' statement "Compared with 1696.6MW·h without de-icing, each de-icing scheme is able to reduce the system risk." is obviously valid, however the EENS results differ by, at most 72.9 MWh and frequently by less than 10 MWh. So a confidence interval on this estimate would be helpful. 怎么看是大修还是小修啊，修改后 录用的机会怎么样啊，心虚如狗啊 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
请问有评职称，把科研教学业绩算分排序的高校吗
已经有6人回复
-
2025冷门绝学什么时候出结果
已经有6人回复
-
Bioresource Technology期刊，第一次返修的时候被退回好几次了
已经有7人回复
-
真诚求助：手里的省社科项目结项要求主持人一篇中文核心，有什么渠道能发核心吗
已经有8人回复
-
寻求一种能扛住强氧化性腐蚀性的容器密封件
已经有5人回复
-
请问哪里可以有青B申请的本子可以借鉴一下。
已经有4人回复
-
请问下大家为什么这个铃木偶联几乎不反应呢
已经有5人回复
-
天津工业大学郑柳春团队欢迎化学化工、高分子化学或有机合成方向的博士生和硕士生加入
已经有4人回复
-
康复大学泰山学者周祺惠团队招收博士研究生
已经有6人回复
-
AI论文写作工具：是科研加速器还是学术作弊器？
已经有3人回复
goddiao
金虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 65 (初中生)
- 金币: 2291.5
- 散金: 100
- 红花: 14
- 帖子: 195
- 在线: 374.2小时
- 虫号: 2975938
- 注册: 2014-02-18
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 模式识别
10楼2016-01-10 19:56:45
goddiao
金虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 65 (初中生)
- 金币: 2291.5
- 散金: 100
- 红花: 14
- 帖子: 195
- 在线: 374.2小时
- 虫号: 2975938
- 注册: 2014-02-18
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 模式识别
2楼2016-01-10 14:19:09
3楼2016-01-10 14:31:38
dong1059
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 159 (高中生)
- 金币: 3891.9
- 散金: 1655
- 红花: 49
- 帖子: 1400
- 在线: 732.1小时
- 虫号: 1547670
- 注册: 2011-12-22
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 无机非金属类光电信息与功
4楼2016-01-10 14:59:48
|
不知道你是否逐条看了修改意见。我自己看了，真正在技术上提出的问题只有两条，剩下的那么多意见都是写作上的，英语吧图表之类的。第一个人的意见不太容易改，说得有点笼统不够具体，我自己的感觉就是一大堆修改写作的，让修改的技术上的略少，拿不准到底什么态度了，心很虚 发自小木虫IOS客户端 |
5楼2016-01-10 15:45:10
dong1059
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 159 (高中生)
- 金币: 3891.9
- 散金: 1655
- 红花: 49
- 帖子: 1400
- 在线: 732.1小时
- 虫号: 1547670
- 注册: 2011-12-22
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 无机非金属类光电信息与功
6楼2016-01-10 15:55:16
7楼2016-01-10 16:02:08
8楼2016-01-10 16:10:51
dingsuanglin
木虫 (知名作家)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 5727.9
- 散金: 20
- 红花: 30
- 沙发: 4
- 帖子: 8575
- 在线: 217.6小时
- 虫号: 4300127
- 注册: 2015-12-20
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 金属有机化学
9楼2016-01-10 16:15:03