24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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)

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 50.9
散金: 120
帖子: 167
在线: 48.2小时
虫号: 1420773
注册: 2011-09-28
专业: 通信理论与系统

[交流] IEEE CL，重投后又给了minor revision required，假如再被发现小毛病，还会给机会吗？

一审被拒，但是允许重投，给了两个月的修改时间，于是修改后重投，现在文章又被打回来了。给了21天的修改时间，
现在三个审稿人中有两个说对文章很满意，另外一个又找出了几个问题，貌似是小问题了。
我现在修改提交后，还会是三个审稿人都要重审吗？还是只有这个有问题的reviewer要重审？因为我感觉三个reviewer的意见不是很一致，如果只照顾一个人的意见的话修改会容易一点。

还有，这个有问题的reviewer还指出了我的格式问题，比如公式后面的标点忘掉了，参考文献的格式不很规范之类的。编辑在信里说，只有所有的问题都被满足了才被接收。
我想问，假如我某一点点仍然不满足reviewer的要求，或者reviewer又发现了新的小问题，编辑还会给机会吗？还是直接pass掉了？
第一次问题很严重时都给了两个月的修改时间，现在这些问题都是鸡毛蒜皮的，编辑会因为审理超过两次了而拒稿吗？

下面是编辑来信：
The review of the referenced manuscript is now complete. The reviews of the manuscript are attached. Based on the reviews and my own reading of your manuscript,  I cannot accept your letter for publication in its current form. Your manuscript  requires revisions, as outlined below, before the paper can be published. If these revisions are satisfactorily made  (including meeting the length guidelines), the paper will be accepted for publication.

Additional comments: Please respond to the remaining concerns of Reviewer 2 and modify the paper where necessary.


Your revision will be due within 21 days and is due on 19-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 21 days have elapsed.

Thank you for considering IEEE Communications Letters as a means of publication. I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Best Regards,

Nikola Zlatanov

Editor
IEEE Communications Letters


Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author
The contributions of the paper are now more clearly stated. The numerical section is also considerably improved. I have no further comments.

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author
This revision looks fine. I have some minor comments.

1. In Eq. (15), the authors define the queueing delay as the division between the queue length and the throughput.
Generally, the queueing delay is defined as the average queue length over the average arrival rate, according to Little's law.
Therefore, the authors should justify/modify this definition.

2. In Lemma 1, it is not rigorous to state "approximate linear" without any theoretical justification.

3. The format of the references should be improved.

4. The format of the equations should be improved. For example, comma or period should be added at the end of each equation.

Reviewer: 3

Comments to the Author
The revision work meets my question. This time I have no comment.

回复此楼