Re: IEEE.Tran.COmmunication和parallel地审稿周期是多久 - 未名空间MITBBS历史存档

国际科技财经博客移民网络热点娱乐民生时事公众号

Redian新闻

>未名空间

>EE - 电子工程

Re: IEEE.Tran.COmmunication和parallel地审稿周期是多久

Re: IEEE.Tran.COmmunication和parallel地审稿周期是多久# EE - 电子工程

t*r2002-11-27 08:11

1 楼

Here are my experience & opinions on Tran. Communication
1) It takes approximately one month just to have an editor
assigned for your paper.
2) Letter should be faster than paper. The shorter, the better.
3) The review speed can vary alot. It depends on factors
such as diligence of editor and reviewers. As a result of
lack of diligence, several associate editors have been 'fired'
in the past two years.
4) Tip: follow the submission instruction exactly (for example
double space, 26 lines, <20 pa

x*g2002-11-27 08:11

2 楼

To my opinion, technical contents are much much more important than English
presentation. I never rejected any paper only because of its poor English.
If that is the case, you can ask him to revise the paper again and again, but
you should confirm that the paper does have technical contribution.
I rejected a perfectly written paper, by a fellow. He is presentation is
perfect, but the proof he gave is wrong. I think, that's the most important
part. In my opinion, if a paper has enough technical

【在 t********r 的大作中提到】

:
: Here are my experience & opinions on Tran. Communication
: 1) It takes approximately one month just to have an editor
: assigned for your paper.
: 2) Letter should be faster than paper. The shorter, the better.
: 3) The review speed can vary alot. It depends on factors
: such as diligence of editor and reviewers. As a result of
: lack of diligence, several associate editors have been 'fired'
: in the past two years.
: 4) Tip: follow the submission instruction exactly (for example

x*g2002-11-27 08:11

3 楼

Some further comments:
Reviewer is the god, but, try to think this way, "When you are the author,
think that those reviewers are gods. When you are the reviewer, do not think
yourself as god."
I also want to suggest that, if you think the paper has good technical
contribution, you should confirm it in your comments. As an information
passed to the authors that the revising is not a waste of time. I think
this is important to the authors.