第一篇SCi投稿，今天刚刚收到审稿意见。共有3个审稿人。前2个的问题基本都是些小问题，但是第三个审稿的意见本人觉得不好解决，有拒稿的意思。请各位大侠指点。以下是第三个审稿人的意见： Reviewer: 3 >Comments to the Author >The ideas in the paper are interesting and the theoretic results obtained have some potential in applications. However, the paper is poorly written and the organization needs a big improvement, although the results are globally technically correct. Therefore, this reviewer does not recomend its acceptance as a full paper at this stage. > >1. The motivation of wide practical use of the theoretic results presented should be clearly emphasized. At this stage, it is not quite clear to the reviewer. > >2. As similar problem in the paper has been studied by others in the past, so the unique features of the approaches proposed and the main advantages of the results over others have to be clearly commented and shown. > >3. The example used to demonstrate the main results need to be improved. More remarks should be given to the figures to clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of the obtained results. > >4. The paper also has some typos and language issue which needs to be checked and corrected in the revision. > >5. It seems that all the techniques used to solve the problems have been proposed in literature. What are the difficultis when dealing with these problems. The authors fail to illustrate this point clearly. Considering this, this reviewer thinks that the paper better be shortened and reorganized as a brief paper. 返回小木虫查看更多