| 24小時(shí)熱門(mén)版塊排行榜 |
| 查看: 6251 | 回復(fù): 29 | ||
fatbone木蟲(chóng) (小有名氣)
|
[求助]
求助,投到IEEE GRSL的文章被Reject and Resubmit 已有6人參與
|
|
|
投到IEEE GRSL的文章,初稿有四個(gè)審稿人。關(guān)于初稿,編輯給的結(jié)果是大修。在初稿的審稿意見(jiàn)中,第四個(gè)審稿人只提了一個(gè)很小的問(wèn)題,所以編輯可能覺(jué)得沒(méi)有必然再將修改稿返回給他評(píng)審。于是修改稿的審稿人就只剩原來(lái)四個(gè)審稿人中的前三個(gè)了。從下面的修改稿的審稿意見(jiàn)中看得出來(lái),審稿人Reviewer 1和Reviewer 3已經(jīng)沒(méi)有什么大意見(jiàn),相當(dāng)于推薦發(fā)表了,可是審稿人Reviewer 2還是意見(jiàn)很大。于是最終編輯就給了“Reject and Resubmit”。其實(shí)編輯也說(shuō)了,主要是因?yàn)槟硞(gè)審稿人意見(jiàn)大(Since the comments (in particular from one Reviewer) are not minor),就是指的Reviewer 2吧。郁悶!下面就把修改稿的審稿意見(jiàn)貼在下面。 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Mr.***: Your paper has been carefully reviewed by the GRSL review panel and found to be unacceptable in its present form. The reviewers did suggest, however, that if completely revised the paper might be found acceptable. We encourage you to revise and resubmit this manuscript as a new paper to GRSL. If you decide to resubmit, please use "Create a resubmission" link in your Author Center. Your resubmission is due by 23-Feb-2015. Below you will find comments from the review panel. Any attached files that may be referenced with these comments can be accessed in a copy of this decision letter located in your Author Center on ScholarOne Manuscripts. Sincerely, Prof. *** Editor-in-Chief, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters Associate Editor Comments: Associate Editor Comments to the Author: Your manuscript has been improved during this revision round. However, there are still serious concerns regarding the clarity and the experiments which still deserve to be considered. Since the comments (in particular from one Reviewer) are not minor, I am recommending a “Reject and Resubmit”. Please address all Reviewers’ comments carefully so that, in case you decide to resubmit it to GRSL, we can assign your manuscript to the same Reviewers. Reviewer(s) Comments: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author The paper has been quite improved. In the experimental analysis, other well-known approaches have been added for comparison. About this, I would probably choose to use the iterative versions of MAD and PCA algorithms, such as IR-MAD and IterativePCA, which have been proven to be more effective. I don't ask to put new experiments, but it would be interesting to see if the comparison with these techniques gives the same results of the previous one. Beside that, the Authors have responded adequately to my questions and I would recommend the paper for acceptance. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author The paper is slightly improved with respect to its previous version. However there are still several missing/incomplete/unclear information/sentences and experimental analysis are not convincing. The methodological part is not well-explained and very difficult to understand. My detailed comments are given below: 1-The proposed method is devoted to ***. However, the results are compared with the methods that assess ***. Thus, I think this comparison is not fair and also it is not clear how these methods are applied for the analysis in this paper. 2-The methods used for comparison are mostly for multispectral images. However, in the paper it is not clear to me how these methods are applied to the hyperspectral images for comparison purposes. Thus, again I found it very unfair to compare. 3-The methods considered are formulated in a very poor way, and there are still several symbols not defined. For example, the operations in (4), (5) and (6) are not defined and also N is set to both number of image pixels and number of images considered at the same time. 4-The data sets used are very simple and not enough to prove the effectiveness of the present work. In addition, the number of hyperspectral image bands and the data acquisition times are not mentioned. Reviewer: 3 Comments to the Author The conclusion should be reworked to highlight the current limitations of the algorithm (applied on a small area + high processing time) and future work directions shall mention these as axis of future research. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 初稿的審稿意見(jiàn)提的問(wèn)題很多,我的response寫(xiě)了接近二十頁(yè)。修改稿提交后,審了三個(gè)多月,現(xiàn)在審稿意見(jiàn)回來(lái)了,就貼在上面,比較少。算上初稿的第四個(gè)人審稿人,審稿人中的四分之三(也就是除了修改稿中的意見(jiàn)很大的審稿人Reviewer 2)都看懂了算法,也都認(rèn)可了文章,基本上不大反對(duì)發(fā)表?善玆eviewer 2還是覺(jué)得算法很難,看不懂。我是不知道他是真的看不懂,還是壓根就沒(méi)仔細(xì)看,F(xiàn)在編輯給了“Reject and Resubmit”,我想請(qǐng)教幾個(gè)問(wèn)題: 1)Reject and Resubmit的話(huà),我是不是就不用或者不能寫(xiě)response了?因?yàn)槲矣X(jué)得意見(jiàn)很大的那個(gè)審稿人Reviewer 2可能沒(méi)看懂文章或者沒(méi)認(rèn)真看,有些誤會(huì)。例如在他的審稿意見(jiàn)中,第三條說(shuō) “N is set to both number of image pixels and number of images considered at the same time.”,實(shí)際上我仔細(xì)核對(duì)文章后確認(rèn)我并沒(méi)有犯這個(gè)錯(cuò)誤,而且其他三個(gè)審稿人也沒(méi)人認(rèn)為有這種錯(cuò)誤,還有他說(shuō)“operations in (4), (5) and (6) are not defined”,其實(shí)公式(4)(5)(6)是教科書(shū)中就會(huì)講的三個(gè)很普通的公式,真的沒(méi)有什么好說(shuō)的,而且IEEE GRSL有篇幅要求,真要展開(kāi)講,內(nèi)容就超過(guò)期刊要求了,F(xiàn)在這個(gè)審稿人reviewer 2提出這些問(wèn)題,我真是有點(diǎn)懷疑他可能是我比較的某個(gè)文章的作者,他覺(jué)得他的效果很不好,所以有些惱火。Reject and Resubmit的話(huà),假如我不能response,就不能解釋(畢竟有些解釋的話(huà)不能寫(xiě)在文章中),文章重新投稿后,編輯再讓他審稿,看目前的架勢(shì),我還是死路一條。 2)初稿的審稿人是四個(gè),而修改稿的審稿人是三個(gè)。我感覺(jué)修改稿的Reviewer 2不是初稿的Reviewer 2,很可能是初稿審稿人中的Reviewer 3,這個(gè)是我從審稿意見(jiàn)的語(yǔ)氣和用詞相似度推斷出來(lái)的。請(qǐng)問(wèn)這個(gè)我現(xiàn)在可以寫(xiě)信問(wèn)編輯嗎?我想看看修改稿的Reviewer 2是否是初稿審稿人的Reviewer 3,或者我想知道修改稿的Reviewer 2是對(duì)應(yīng)初稿的哪個(gè)審稿人,然后結(jié)合他給的初稿的審稿意見(jiàn)再去修改文章。 3)問(wèn)題有些老套,就是文章“Reject and Resubmit”后,還值得再投稿到IEEE GRSL嗎?被接受的可能性如何呢?我問(wèn)這個(gè)問(wèn)題,一方面是因?yàn)楫吘笽EEE GRSL這個(gè)期刊檔次比較高,確實(shí)很難中,Resubmit的話(huà),編輯明確說(shuō)是“as a new paper to GRSL”;另一方面,我的時(shí)間真的等不起了!關(guān)于截止日期,編輯給的是“Your resubmission is due by 23-Feb-2015.”,這就基本上是五個(gè)月的時(shí)間,看樣子即使Resubmit,我也不能太早提交上去,否則可能會(huì)被認(rèn)為不認(rèn)真對(duì)待不好好修改。 4)如果我重新將文章投稿到IEEE GRSL的話(huà),是否可以申請(qǐng)回避修改稿中的這個(gè)意見(jiàn)很大的審稿人Reviewer 2呢?或者不再將稿件給這個(gè)人審稿呢? 大家?guī)臀铱纯春脝?懇?qǐng)給我一些建議。 非常非常感謝。。。! |

銅蟲(chóng) (正式寫(xiě)手)
金蟲(chóng) (正式寫(xiě)手)

榮譽(yù)版主 (文壇精英)
|
1.Reject and Resubmit后,有投稿信啊,肯定要回復(fù)審稿人意見(jiàn)的,所以仔細(xì)檢查審稿人2的意見(jiàn)(不要先入為主,讓別人幫你看看也行),然后回答他提出 的問(wèn)題,做出的修改;認(rèn)為他不對(duì)的地方,委婉地提出來(lái),句末最好恭維一下該審稿人。 2.這個(gè)沒(méi)有必要 3.越早越好,當(dāng)然前提是認(rèn)真修改過(guò)了 4.建議不要申請(qǐng)回避 |
榮譽(yù)版主 (文壇精英)
木蟲(chóng) (小有名氣)

新蟲(chóng) (正式寫(xiě)手)
|
Reject and Resubmit其實(shí)就是大修,而且你已經(jīng)有了三分之二的人同意接受了,所以你現(xiàn)在要做的就是按照審稿人2的意見(jiàn)認(rèn)真修改,不要和他爭(zhēng)辯,要有理有據(jù)的回復(fù)審稿意見(jiàn),這樣接受概率才會(huì)很大。現(xiàn)在靜下心來(lái)安心搞定吧。 一般重投后還是原來(lái)雜志,而且IEEE T的大修小修都會(huì)返回給原審稿人,所以你是回避不了的。 一般一個(gè)月之后返回過(guò)去就可以了。加油! |
| Reject and resubmit還是好好修改后繼續(xù)投的好,畢竟你換其他的期刊也要差不多幾個(gè)月的時(shí)間。此外,針對(duì)第二個(gè)reviewer,我認(rèn)為還是應(yīng)該認(rèn)真的回復(fù)。他可以看不懂,但是你要解釋到,沒(méi)必要在文章中詳細(xì)推導(dǎo)公式,最起碼你可以指出公式可以從哪些文獻(xiàn)中找到。另外,cover letter要重新寫(xiě)過(guò),但是要說(shuō)明之前投稿的ID,response也需要一一回復(fù)啊,不要編輯不說(shuō),你就啥都不敢提交了,你弄的仔細(xì)完善清楚了,編輯方便當(dāng)然更容易接受,是吧?呵呵 |
金蟲(chóng) (正式寫(xiě)手)

木蟲(chóng) (小有名氣)

鐵蟲(chóng) (正式寫(xiě)手)

木蟲(chóng) (小有名氣)

木蟲(chóng) (小有名氣)

用戶(hù)注銷(xiāo) (著名寫(xiě)手)
用戶(hù)注銷(xiāo) (著名寫(xiě)手)
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 306求調(diào)劑 +3 | 來(lái)好運(yùn)來(lái)來(lái)來(lái) 2026-03-22 | 3/150 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 一志愿華中科技大學(xué)071000,求調(diào)劑 +4 | 沿岸有貝殼6 2026-03-21 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 化學(xué)工程321分求調(diào)劑 +18 | 大米飯! 2026-03-15 | 22/1100 |
|
|
[考研] 22 350 本科985求調(diào)劑,求老登收留 +3 | 李軼男003 2026-03-20 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 085601調(diào)劑 358分 +3 | zzzzggh 2026-03-20 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研]
|
.6lL 2026-03-18 | 8/400 |
|
|
[考研] 一志愿華南師大 070300(化學(xué))304分求調(diào)劑 +3 | 0703武芊慧雪304 2026-03-18 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 22408 344分 求調(diào)劑 一志愿 華電計(jì)算機(jī)技術(shù) +4 | solanXXX 2026-03-20 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 一志愿蘇州大學(xué)材料求調(diào)劑,總分315(英一) +5 | sbdksD 2026-03-19 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 一志愿中南化學(xué)(0703)總分337求調(diào)劑 +8 | niko- 2026-03-19 | 9/450 |
|
|
[考研] 一志愿武理材料工程348求調(diào)劑 +3 |  ̄^ ̄゜汗 2026-03-19 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 289求調(diào)劑 +6 | 懷瑾握瑜l 2026-03-20 | 6/300 |
|
|
[考研] 319求調(diào)劑 +3 | 小力氣珂珂 2026-03-20 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 求調(diào)劑 +3 | @taotao 2026-03-20 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 一志愿中國(guó)海洋大學(xué),生物學(xué),301分,求調(diào)劑 +5 | 1孫悟空 2026-03-17 | 6/300 |
|
|
[考研] 085601材料工程專(zhuān)碩求調(diào)劑 +10 | 慕寒mio 2026-03-16 | 10/500 |
|
|
[考研] 328求調(diào)劑,英語(yǔ)六級(jí)551,有科研經(jīng)歷 +4 | 生物工程調(diào)劑 2026-03-16 | 12/600 |
|
|
[考研] 【同濟(jì)軟件】軟件(085405)考研求調(diào)劑 +3 | 2026eternal 2026-03-18 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 302求調(diào)劑 +4 | 小賈同學(xué)123 2026-03-15 | 8/400 |
|
|
[考研] 070300化學(xué)學(xué)碩求調(diào)劑 +6 | 太想進(jìn)步了0608 2026-03-16 | 6/300 |
|