 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 5 | 2/1 | 返回列表 |
| 查看: 3658 | 回復(fù): 21 | |||
| 當(dāng)前只顯示滿足指定條件的回帖，點(diǎn)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(gè)審稿人，一個(gè)意見是“the performance of the proposed protocol has to be compared with a benchmark scheme where the 。。。。�！保沁@個(gè)review要求進(jìn)行對比的這個(gè)benchmark和我的雖然有點(diǎn)類似，但是其實(shí)沒有什么可比性。 另外一個(gè)說我的其中一個(gè)參數(shù)假設(shè)的太理想化了，不太合理（其實(shí)我另外一篇也是這個(gè)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(gè)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(jì)。其實(shí)沒有辦法證明這個(gè)方案最優(yōu)，因?yàn)槲沂鞘紫仍谶@種實(shí)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(jià)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(gè)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
材料科學(xué)與工程求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有3人回復(fù)
-
289求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有5人回復(fù)
-
329求調(diào)劑，一志愿西北工業(yè)大學(xué)，材料工程（085601）
已經(jīng)有6人回復(fù)
-
化學(xué)工程085602 305分求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有21人回復(fù)
-
26申博自薦
已經(jīng)有5人回復(fù)
-
296求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有5人回復(fù)
-
總分293求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有10人回復(fù)
-
材料專碩調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有3人回復(fù)
-
調(diào)劑310
已經(jīng)有12人回復(fù)
-
化學(xué)0703 調(diào)劑 306分 一志愿211
已經(jīng)有6人回復(fù)
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(shí)
- 蟲號: 1420773
- 注冊: 2011-09-28
- 專業(yè): 通信理論與系統(tǒng)
|
謝謝大神的指點(diǎn)，現(xiàn)在文章又被打回來了。給了21天的修改時(shí)間， 三個(gè)審稿人中有兩個(gè)說對文章很滿意，另外一個(gè)又找出了幾個(gè)問題，貌似是小問題了。 我現(xiàn)在修改提交后，還會是三個(gè)審稿人都要重審嗎？還是只有這個(gè)有問題的reviewer要重審？ 因?yàn)槲腋杏X三個(gè)reviewer的意見不是很一致，如果只照顧一個(gè)人的意見的話修改會容易一點(diǎn)。 還有，這個(gè)有問題的reviewer還指出了我的格式問題，比如公式后面的標(biāo)點(diǎn)忘掉了，參考文獻(xiàn)的格式不很規(guī)范之類的。編輯在信里說，只有所有的問題都被滿足了才被接收。 我想問，假如我某一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)仍然不滿足reviewer的要求，或者reviewer又發(fā)現(xiàn)了新的小問題，編輯還會給機(jī)會嗎？還是直接pass掉了？ 第一次問題很嚴(yán)重時(shí)都給了兩個(gè)月的修改時(shí)間，現(xiàn)在這些問題都是雞毛蒜皮的，編輯會因?yàn)閷徖沓^兩次了而拒稿嗎？ 下面是編輯來信： 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. |
17樓2016-01-30 15:28:45
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(shí)
- 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(gè)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(gè)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(shí)
- 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考博] 26申博自薦 +5 | whh869393 2026-03-24 | 5/250 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 一志愿南昌大學(xué)324求調(diào)劑 +5 | hanamiko 2026-03-29 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 300求調(diào)劑，材料科學(xué)英一數(shù)二 +9 | leaflight 2026-03-24 | 9/450 |
|
|
|
[考研] 329求調(diào)劑 +10 | 鈕恩雪 2026-03-25 | 10/500 |
|
|
|
[考研] 329求調(diào)劑 +7 | 星野? 2026-03-26 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 081200-11408-276學(xué)碩求調(diào)劑 +6 | 崔wj 2026-03-26 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 328求調(diào)劑 +7 | 嗯滴的基本都 2026-03-27 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 285求調(diào)劑 +4 | AZMK 2026-03-27 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 265求調(diào)劑11408 +3 | 劉小鹿lu 2026-03-27 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿211院校 344分 東北農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)生物學(xué)學(xué)碩，求調(diào)劑 +5 | 丶風(fēng)雪夜歸人丶 2026-03-26 | 8/400 |
|
|
|
[考研] 272求調(diào)劑 +7 | 腳滑的守法公民 2026-03-27 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 333求調(diào)劑 +3 | question挽風(fēng) 2026-03-23 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 材料求調(diào)劑 +5 | .m.. 2026-03-25 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 324求調(diào)劑 +5 | hanamiko 2026-03-26 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 081200-11408-276學(xué)碩求調(diào)劑 +4 | 崔wj 2026-03-26 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 336材料求調(diào)劑 +7 | 陳瀅瑩 2026-03-26 | 9/450 |
|
|
|
[考研] 281求調(diào)劑 +6 | Koxui 2026-03-24 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 求調(diào)劑 +3 | 李李不服輸 2026-03-25 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 材料專碩找調(diào)劑 +5 | 哈哈哈吼吼吼哈 2026-03-23 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿河北工業(yè)大學(xué)0817化工278分求調(diào)劑 +7 | jhybd 2026-03-23 | 12/600 |
|