最近投了IEEE TPEL(Transactions on power electronics)，五個(gè)審稿人，兩個(gè)接受，一個(gè)大修，一個(gè)修改，一個(gè)拒稿重投，主編給了conditionally recommended publication。其他的回復(fù)都還好，有一個(gè)審稿人給了側(cè)重的是數(shù)學(xué)問(wèn)題而不是工程問(wèn)題，做的是空間矢量調(diào)制，回復(fù)比較困難(尤其是第6個(gè)問(wèn)題)，請(qǐng)各位前輩提出寶貴的建議，謝謝！

Recommendation: Revision – The paper is not accepted. Reviewer recommends authors be given one chance to respond to reviewers’ comments in 6 weeks or less.

Comments:
1 - Paper is solid in terms of math modeling.
2 - It is not clear to me if the problem could be analyzed in a more simple way. While reading the paper, it looked to me that the subject was more related to the math problem than to the engineering problem o f voltage fluctuation.
3 - Vienna rectifier is a well-known circuit, from which there are several improvements and analisys methods. However, there has been not so much real contribution to the problems faced in Vienna Rectifier, as most literature deal with narrow subjects such as the one described in this paper.
4 - The paper has good quality, but the subject is very narrow. Should focus on the engineering aspects instead of the mathematical problem. Consider explaining the importance of the subject;
5 - Also, consider explaining clearly which problem this technique solves, because at the end of the paper it was not clear which improvement was made.
(主要是一種新的分析方法，實(shí)驗(yàn)做的可能不夠完善)
6 - There is little engineering judgement and insight. The results shown are not exclusive to the present subject.
（第六個(gè)問(wèn)題最疑惑，工程判斷力和洞察力是指什么？）


Additional Questions:
Quality of Presentation (5 being the highest; 0 being the lowest):

Clear, concise, effective presentation: 4

Effective illustrations and tables: 5

Correct English language: 4

Useful references to past work: 4

Technical Presentation/Accuracy (5 being the highest; 0 being the lowest):

Valuable for practicing engineers or researchers: 3

Technically and mathematically accurate: 4

Well supported with analysis and experimental evidence: 4

Rich in engineering judgement and insight: 2

Interesting to readers, stimulates new ideas: 3

On a scale of 1 to 10, please rate the quality of the research contribution or the technical impact in this paper:
3
Incremental addition to existing knowledge or practice and of limited importance

Explain in detail the reasons for the research contribution or technical impact score. What is the new contribution
of this paper? Why is it important (or not) to existing knowledge? Please recognize that effective review or tutorial
papers can provide a strong contribution even with limited new content.: The subject is a method to evaluate a fluctuation caused due to the nature of Vienna Rectifier. This subject has been discussed in pther papers. 返回小木蟲查看更多