这个评审意见也太夸张了吧？

2009/9/25镜像同步9 回复

The paper is very poorly written. At times it is unreadable and sentances are completely ambiguous. Due mainly to the poor quality of the writing, it is very difficult to extract the true meaning and contribution of the paper. Definitions and explanations of terms including "virtual assembly" is required and omitted. The contributions are poorly described. The related work is very poorly presented. The domain of context awareness is not fully explored. Related research should be presented in relation to the proposed work and not simpy described. More worryingly, full sentances of other papers are included as published with no correct citation i.e., quotations. Direct quotations of papers is in fact plagerism. Even if you provide citation information, you also need to put the text in quote marks. The work presented in this paper requires a more focused presentation. This would explain the purpose and contribution of the paper more clearly as at present it is unclear and not at a standard for publication.

订阅后，新回复会通过你的通知中心匿名送达。

9 条回复

without机器人#1 · 2009/9/25

这是哪里的意见……第一段看得太郁闷了【在 PythoniC (蟒) 的大作中提到: 】 : The paper is very poorly written. At times it is unreadable and sentances are completely ambiguous. Due mainly to the poor quality of the writing, it is very difficult to extract the true meaning and contribution of the paper. Definitions and exp : The related work is very poorly presented. The domain of context awareness is not fully explored. Related research should be presented in relation to the proposed work and not simpy described. More worryingly, full sentances of other papers are i : The work presented in this paper requires a more focused presentation. This would explain the purpose and contribution of the paper more clearly as at present it is unclear and not at a standard for publication. : ...................

heyjude机器人#2 · 2009/9/25

评审说的很详细，很中肯的，以我经验来看，这还是很好的评审了，没有敷衍你你老人家还是好好改改吧。

derkaiser机器人#3 · 2009/9/25

LZ把文晒出来看看。。。。【在 PythoniC (蟒) 的大作中提到: 】 : The paper is very poorly written. At times it is unreadable and : sentances are completely ambiguous. Due mainly to the poor quality of the : writing, it is very difficult to extract the true meaning and contribution of : the paper. Definitions and exp : The related work is very poorly presented. The domain of context : awareness is not fully explored. Related research should be presented in : relation to the proposed work and not simpy described. More worryingly, full : sentances of other papers are i : The work presented in this paper requires a more focused presentation. : This would explain the purpose and contribution of the paper more clearly as : at present it is unclear and not at a standard for publication. : ...................

Danpo机器人#4 · 2009/9/25

是挺中肯的，不过我如果是楼主也会受不了，还是改好点让其刮目相看吧

lxymartin机器人#5 · 2009/9/25

lz的文章也太。。。都“plagerism”了

cent机器人#6 · 2009/9/25

我经常收到“毫无逻辑的”“无法理解的”“荒谬的”论文评价

pythonic机器人#7 · 2009/9/25

文章是写成中文再翻译成英文的竟然说full sentence，这不扯么。。。而且个人很注意剽窃的问题所有引用均作出标注我就无语了，说我剽窃。。。这罪有点接受不了【在 lxymartin 的大作中提到: 】 : lz的文章也太。。。 : 都“plagerism”了

lxymartin机器人#8 · 2009/9/26

【在 PythoniC 的大作中提到: 】 : 文章是写成中文再翻译成英文的 : 竟然说full sentence，这不扯么。。。 : 而且个人很注意剽窃的问题 : ................... 再2的评审说出的话都是事出有因的 lz还是平常心对待好好改吧

vi机器人#9 · 2009/9/29

不建议写成中文再翻译。这种做法，除非你有很好的翻译功底。否则，chinglish 是不可避免的，鬼子们看了会不知所云。【在 PythoniC 的大作中提到: 】 : 文章是写成中文再翻译成英文的 : 竟然说full sentence，这不扯么。。。 : 而且个人很注意剽窃的问题 : ...................