 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 5 | 2/1 | 返回列表 |
| 查看: 3666 | 回復(fù): 21 | |||
| 當前只顯示滿足指定條件的回帖，點擊這里查看本話題的所有回帖 | |||
ssjcumt新蟲 (小有名氣)
|
[交流]
IEEE Comm. letter, rejected & resubmission allowed,修改稿可超四頁嗎？
|
||
|
按照審稿人要求感覺肯定四頁不夠用，修改稿可以超過四頁嗎？ 如果改投，這種四五頁的短文還有哪些雜志可以接收？請大神幫著推薦幾家。 另外，這種 rejected & resubmissin有多大希望呢？ 三個審稿人，一個意見是“the performance of the proposed protocol has to be compared with a benchmark scheme where the 。。。。�！�，但是這個review要求進行對比的這個benchmark和我的雖然有點類似，但是其實沒有什么可比性。 另外一個說我的其中一個參數(shù)假設(shè)的太理想化了，不太合理（其實我另外一篇也是這個假設(shè)，審稿人也沒說什么），也提到了要我跟別人的方案去比較。 第三個審稿人意見特別多，寫了兩頁，其他的問題都好回答，就其中一條比較難對付，是說我的為什么要這么做？方案為什么這么設(shè)計。其實沒有辦法證明這個方案最優(yōu)，因為我是首先在這種實際環(huán)境下提方案的。 “研究有沒有意義”這種問題，考慮角度不同，結(jié)論也不同。 請問大家，我這種情況，還有修改的價值么？感覺審稿人對我的研究領(lǐng)域還挺熟悉。像“the assumption seems too ideal.”，“the usefulness of the proposed protocol”這樣的問題，應(yīng)該從哪兒入手呢？ 編輯來信如下： 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.這一條是要我證明一個公式。很容易就證明了。 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. |
回復(fù)此樓» 猜你喜歡
309求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有8人回復(fù)
-
一志愿南航 335分 | 0856 | GPA 4.07 | 有科研經(jīng)歷
已經(jīng)有8人回復(fù)
-
求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有5人回復(fù)
-
求化學調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有5人回復(fù)
-
085600，材料與化工321分求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有10人回復(fù)
-
0703 化學 求調(diào)劑，一志愿山東大學 342 分
已經(jīng)有5人回復(fù)
-
一志愿南開大學0710生物學359求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有3人回復(fù)
-
085600，專業(yè)課化工原理，320分求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有4人回復(fù)
-
材料與化工272求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有16人回復(fù)
-
290求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有3人回復(fù)
zldrobit
新蟲 (初入文壇)
- 應(yīng)助: 0 (幼兒園)
- 金幣: 16
- 帖子: 11
- 在線: 14.7小時
- 蟲號: 2633208
- 注冊: 2013-09-03
- 專業(yè): 通信理論與系統(tǒng)
★
小木蟲: 金幣+0.5, 給個紅包，謝謝回帖
小木蟲: 金幣+0.5, 給個紅包，謝謝回帖
|
我記得我重投CL的時候是按照審稿人的意見比較了別人的protocol的，性能沒有別人好，不過在response和修改manuscript的introduction里說明了原因：即使別人protocol的吞吐量比自己的大，但是同時別人的開銷特別大。希望能給樓主一點幫助。。。 另外關(guān)于CL限制4頁長度的問題，好像投稿系統(tǒng)是不支持長于4頁的文章的。 但是我自己的就比4頁長，后來是用了latex的包縮減了很多空白，（例如：圖和標題，標題和正文之間）才排到4頁的，樓主也可以試一下呢。 ps:自己的CL重投還沒有最終結(jié)果呢。。。 |
13樓2016-01-04 14:31:04
whcyb
木蟲 (小有名氣)
- 應(yīng)助: 0 (幼兒園)
- 金幣: 1368.1
- 散金: 2200
- 紅花: 1
- 帖子: 185
- 在線: 191.4小時
- 蟲號: 2785795
- 注冊: 2013-11-07
- 性別: GG
- 專業(yè): 通信理論與系統(tǒng)
★ ★ ★
小木蟲: 金幣+0.5, 給個紅包，謝謝回帖
ssjcumt: 金幣+2, 大修已經(jīng)回來了，現(xiàn)在在小修中 2016-02-02 17:50:56
小木蟲: 金幣+0.5, 給個紅包，謝謝回帖
ssjcumt: 金幣+2, 大修已經(jīng)回來了，現(xiàn)在在小修中 2016-02-02 17:50:56
|
這種情況就是大修，好好改會接收的，建議改后重投 發(fā)自小木蟲Android客戶端 |
2樓2015-12-02 17:42:52
3樓2015-12-02 19:31:33
ssjcumt
新蟲 (小有名氣)
- 應(yīng)助: 1 (幼兒園)
- 金幣: 50.9
- 散金: 120
- 帖子: 167
- 在線: 48.2小時
- 蟲號: 1420773
- 注冊: 2011-09-28
- 專業(yè): 通信理論與系統(tǒng)
4樓2015-12-02 20:13:17
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 309求調(diào)劑 +8 | 誰不是少年 2026-03-29 | 8/400 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 296求調(diào)劑 +6 | 彼岸t 2026-03-29 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 總分293求調(diào)劑 +8 | 加一一九 2026-03-25 | 11/550 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿北京化工大學材料與化工（085600）296求調(diào)劑 +17 | 稻妻小編 2026-03-26 | 17/850 |
|
|
|
[考研] 08工科求調(diào)劑286 +3 | tgs_001 2026-03-28 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 330分求調(diào)劑 +5 | qzenlc 2026-03-29 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 320分，材料與化工專業(yè)，求調(diào)劑 +9 | 一定上岸aaa 2026-03-27 | 13/650 |
|
|
|
[考研] 0703一志愿9，初試成績：338，四六級已過，有科研經(jīng)歷，求調(diào)劑！ +4 | Zuhui0306 2026-03-25 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 311求調(diào)劑 +3 | 希望上岸阿小楊 2026-03-23 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 07化學280分求調(diào)劑 +10 | 722865 2026-03-23 | 10/500 |
|
|
|
[考研] 0856調(diào)劑 +5 | 求求讓我有書讀?/a> 2026-03-26 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿鄭大085600，310分求調(diào)劑 +5 | 李瀟可 2026-03-26 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 0703化學338求調(diào)劑！ +6 | Zuhui0306 2026-03-26 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 求調(diào)劑 +6 | 林之夕 2026-03-24 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 081200-11408-276學碩求調(diào)劑 +4 | 崔wj 2026-03-26 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 081700 調(diào)劑 267分 +11 | 迷人的哈哈 2026-03-23 | 11/550 |
|
|
|
[考研] 302求調(diào)劑 +4 | 錦衣衛(wèi)藤椒 2026-03-25 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 0854人工智能方向招收調(diào)劑 +4 | 章小魚567 2026-03-24 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 282求調(diào)劑 +3 | wcq131415 2026-03-24 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿北化315 求調(diào)劑 +3 | akrrain 2026-03-24 | 3/150 |
|