审稿意见模版

最新推荐文章于 2024-06-13 16:50:58 发布

袁铭

最新推荐文章于 2024-06-13 16:50:58 发布

阅读量351

点赞数

分类专栏：英语文章标签：学习方法

本文链接：https://blog.csdn.net/weixin_42735325/article/details/128553504

版权

2 篇文章 0 订阅

订阅专栏

This paper studied the … problem in …
This paper proposes a new method of …
The paper is very well written, and contributes …（某种技术方案） scheme for …（应用的对象）, which enables …（这个方案带来的好处） . And the proposed scheme outperforms the state of the arts （新方法的指标比以前的好）and can …（未来可以应用于什么，前景广阔）
This paper proposes XXX. The paper is focused on xxxThe paper presents ·· （fabricated in ·· using ·· to realize··）
The fabricated ·· shows distinct advantage in ····

The work of this paper is practical and logical.The paper is well written and presented.
This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest.
This is a well-written paper containing interesting results which merit publication.
After reading this paper, I think this paper is complete and contains all the necessary components.
The structure is reasonable and logical, and the design principle is clearly and moderately illustrated.From the reviewer’s point of view, the manuscript is publishable. this manuscript makes sufficiently novel to publish in a Trends journal

A few minor revisions are list below.
For the benefit of the reader, however, a number of points need clarifying and certain statements require further justification. There are given below.
I’m very glad to review the paper in greater depth because the subject is interesting. And the submission is worth of publication. Following are some minor comments:
There are some problems, which must be solved before it is considered for publication. If the following problems are well-addressed, this reviewer believes that the essential contribution of this paper are important for （某某理论/领域).
However, I have to reject it because of the following problems:
However, there are some problems to be further improved as well:
To further improve this manuscript, I have the following suggestions:
My detailed comments are as follows:

Some sentences contain grammatical mistakes or are not complete sentences, such as, in page 1, ABSTRACT, “错误的地方” would be “正确的写法”.
There is at least one Spelling error in the manuscript, such as, in page 7, TABLE I, “Stabalization” would be “Stabilization”. Please check the manuscript carefully.
Your manuscript needs careful editing and particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure.
It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.
The authors must have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service before submission; only then can a proper review be performed. Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences. The quality of English needs improving.
There is at least one Spelling error in the manuscript, such as, in page xx, TABLE xxx, “xxx” would be “xxx”. Please check the manuscript carefully.

作者：白杨座
链接：https://www.zhihu.com/question/394102516/answer/2522414509
来源：知乎
著作权归作者所有。商业转载请联系作者获得授权，非商业转载请注明出处。

In page 1, ABSTRACT, authors are suggested to start broad in the general background, then narrow in on the relevant topic that will be pursued in the paper. Maybe this part can be improved!

Relevant research background needs to be supplemented in INTRODUCTION. And you should cite all papers you use properly.

In page 2, SYSTEM MODEL AND PROBLEM STATEMENT, τ is defined as the round-trip delay in (4). So maybe it should be x(t-τ/2) rather than x(t) in (2) ?

The innovations in this paper focus on novel applications, and the methods and theoretical innovations are not sufficient. The author must dig deeper into the innovation points before the article can be accepted by XXX
Another obvious problem with this paper is the lack of sufficient experimentation to demonstrate the validity and applicability of the proposed method. Too few experiments and too many hyperparameters make the conclusion of this paper lack persuasive.

著作权归作者所有。商业转载请联系作者获得授权，非商业转载请注明出处。

Another obvious problem with this paper is lack of sufficient explanation of the simulation results. You need to explain your simulation results in detail and why you got such results.

CONCLUSIONS needs more in it, as it’s more of an afterthought. The authors are suggested to highlight important findings and include afterthought of this work.

The references could be improved. The author, for instance, could cite some work about xxx, see for instance
In addition, the list of references is not in our style. It is close but not completely correct.

The significance of this paper is not expound sufficiently. The author need to highlight this paper’s innovative contributions.

The figures in your paper are a bit blurry. Please consider replacing them with clearer ones.
If it is possible, figures should be made bigger for the readers’ convenience.