大家好: 想請問板上的大大們是否有遇到這類的情況~ 或是能提供相關建議處理的方式。 我在七月中到八月的時間內分別寫完並投出三篇期刊， 三篇內容的各有不同，但主題都是演算法上的改進。 但半個月前我收到第三篇的審查結果被拒絕，意見為: Reviewers' comments: Please see the comments from one of the reviewers. It appears that you have already published similar work in other journals. It is important to identify the new contributions in your paper which indeed fails to do so. 僅只有這樣。於是我很疑惑的又寫信給期刊主編，並詢問審查意見中的相似的研究為何? 另外也詢問是否還有其它審查委員的意見，但昨天收到AE主動寄信給我，內容是: Thank you for your email to EIC and me regarding to the rejected paper. To properly respond to your email, I have found the three papers submitted in parallel by the same group of authors. [1]. 被拒絕第三篇送審論文(一棵樹的期刊). [2]. 審查中的第二篇論文(IEEE), August 2010 [3]. 審查中第一篇論文(IEEE), July 2010 It is observed : 1. In [1], a substantial portion is used in the other two papers. However, there is no reference in [1] to indicate this overlap in other two papers. 2. In [1], the authors also reported the fixed-coefficient architecture which was NOT addressed in other two papers. Discussions on such architecture were also reported. Based on the above observation, I would like to provide the following comments 1. The authors failed to provide proper references in [1] to reveal necessary information for the reviewers 2. The reported fixed-coefficient architecture in [1] has no sufficient contribution or innovation for the paper to be accepted Therefore, my previous decision to reject the paper remains. ================================ 三篇內容的確有一小部分重疊，但演算法得推導上，前面一部分的雖有推導相同， 但主要的在後面推演、核心與架構皆完全不同。 而我很訝異AE為何會因此給定這樣的審查意見，更何況她手上不太可能有三篇稿子。 (都在審當中且分屬三個期刊，另外三個內容一看就知道不一樣，也覺不是一稿多投) 想請問各位大大的意見，遇到這樣我應該要再回信給主編與AE， 說這篇論文完全不是AE認為的那樣，並抗議說這樣的審查結果對我們來說很不公平嗎? 而重點是，他會得到這三篇的資訊是從我們實驗室網頁上看到的。 如果當初我們沒放上去，換句話說，AE也不可能因為這理由而拒絕。 也順便請問，AE這樣的判決是否恰當? (該篇論文送審一個多月後得到這樣的結果) 煩請大家給我意見，謝謝。 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 120.126.40.208