| 查看: 1990 | 回復(fù): 12 | |||
霸王別姬木蟲 (正式寫手)
|
[交流]
globecom2012被拒反饋意見 已有6人參與
|
|
> *** Relevance and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research. Good (4) > *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper (e.g.: completeness of the analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour. Solid work of notable importance. (4) > *** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas or results presented in the paper. Some interesting ideas and results on a subject well investigated. (3) > *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references. Readable, but revision is needed in some parts. (3) > *** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper Timely and useful. The paper's main contribution, despite the claim in the introduction, is the ability to compose chains of caches together to evaluate their performance. > *** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper? First, this reviewer must ask if nothing similar has been done in the CDN (Content Distribution Network) community? There must be a wealth of information and related work from that space. * A few references are missing from experimental networks, with space available. * Writing is very inconsistent. In places it is fluid and elegant. In others it is barely comprehensible. * RVRTT assumes knowledge. Some explanation and examples are required. * Some equations lack intuition/explanation, for example (2) and (3). Also, D in (1) is not defined. * Section IV is the main contribution of this paper, yet it is the most difficult to comprehend given the amount of missing information. * FIgure 4b. Despite claim, there is no statistical difference between these curves. Also, why the fall in probability after k=3? > *** Recommended changes: Recommended changes. Please indicate any changes that should be made to the paper if accepted. * Address above issues, with focus on the RVRTT issue. * Reduce use of 'Clearly' - rarely do statements and observations so clearly emerge. * No appendices, as claimed. 后面括號(hào)里的數(shù)字什么意思? |
|
本帖內(nèi)容被屏蔽 |
木蟲 (正式寫手)
木蟲 (著名寫手)
鐵桿木蟲 (知名作家)
新蟲 (初入文壇)

木蟲 (正式寫手)
木蟲 (正式寫手)
木蟲 (正式寫手)
木蟲 (正式寫手)
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 070300化學(xué)319求調(diào)劑 +4 | 錦鯉0909 2026-03-17 | 4/200 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 344求調(diào)劑 +4 | knight344 2026-03-16 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 308求調(diào)劑 +4 | 是Lupa啊 2026-03-16 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 312求調(diào)劑 +4 | 陌宸希 2026-03-16 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 一志愿天津大學(xué)化學(xué)工藝專業(yè)(081702)315分求調(diào)劑 +5 | yangfz 2026-03-17 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 290求調(diào)劑 +6 | 孔志浩 2026-03-12 | 11/550 |
|
|
[考研] 材料專碩274一志愿陜西師范大學(xué)求調(diào)劑 +5 | 薛云鵬 2026-03-13 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 333求調(diào)劑 +3 | 文思客 2026-03-16 | 7/350 |
|
|
[考研] 285求調(diào)劑 +6 | ytter 2026-03-12 | 6/300 |
|
|
[考研] 0703化學(xué)調(diào)劑 290分有科研經(jīng)歷,論文在投 +7 | 膩膩gk 2026-03-14 | 7/350 |
|
|
[基金申請(qǐng)]
NSFC申報(bào)書里申請(qǐng)人簡(jiǎn)歷中代表性論著還需要在申報(bào)書最后的附件里面再上傳一遍嗎
20+5
|
NSFC2026我來(lái)了 2026-03-10 | 14/700 |
|
|
[考研] 26考研一志愿中國(guó)石油大學(xué)(華東)305分求調(diào)劑 +3 | 嘉年新程 2026-03-15 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 265求調(diào)劑 +4 | 威化餅07 2026-03-12 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 求材料調(diào)劑 085600英一數(shù)二總分302 前三科235 精通機(jī)器學(xué)習(xí) 一志愿哈工大 +4 | 林yaxin 2026-03-12 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] [0860]321分求調(diào)劑,ab區(qū)皆可 +4 | 寶貴熱 2026-03-13 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 26調(diào)劑/材料科學(xué)與工程/總分295/求收留 +9 | 2026調(diào)劑俠 2026-03-12 | 9/450 |
|
|
[考研] 290求調(diào)劑 +7 | ADT 2026-03-12 | 7/350 |
|
|
[考研] 求調(diào)劑 +3 | 程雨杭 2026-03-12 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 277求調(diào)劑 +4 | anchor17 2026-03-12 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 290求調(diào)劑 +3 | 柯淮然 2026-03-10 | 8/400 |
|