送交者: BerkeleyWolf 于 2005-2-04, 02:11:33:
回答: 新的计算机结构 由 CP 于 2005-2-03, 23:10:44:
Your description in your web site is not politically correct. for example:
(1) It means that you often feel to be in an old saying: "You are generally ignored until someone wants to tread on you". I mean, there are a lot of good people out there who really want to help you. I can only acknowledge some of them in my paper--even the majority of the people out there are probably good people. But it is those few people who will leave a lasting bad impact on you.
[comment]: I read this as -- these reviewers are bad guys. You are ignored because you are an independent researcher. hehe... if you think like this, I am sure your paper will never get published.
But I do think that the decision is unfair for me because what the first and the third reviewer said were largely NOT TRUE
[comment] this insults people extensively. instead, I will say: "however, I do think there are large misunderstandings from the reviewer. I will have an extensive discussion here in this letter to dismiss these mis-understandings."
I am fully aware of Flex RAM and active page, and referenced them as [6] and [7] in my paper.
[comment] Let us see what you mean you are full aware of these work. In your paper, the only place for [6][7] are in one sentense "Though different parallel architectures have achieved different degrees of improvements [2][5][6][7][8][9][10], the bus-sharing architectures still hold certain advantages." It is not enough, man. Let a reader know the difference explicitly, instead of letting ppl dig it out by themselves.
There is no way that the cp memory paper copies or "build upon" the active page papers, and this is not true as how I come up with the idea.
[comment] onbody accuses you "copy" others work. It is very defensive in your statement, and very disturbing to me."build upon" means incremental work, man.
Frankly, I do not understand at all how the first reviewer could make such a statement with such an authority. To me, using such "theoretical bent" to reject my paper is just like saying an apple is an orange.
[comment] over-reacting.
I can not image how could the reviewer assume that "an element is associated with a word in memory" after discussing in length the salability of the CP memory.
[comment] very negitive reply. Instead, I prefer: " I believe that the statement from the review 2, "an element is associated with a word in memory", is a large mis-understanding. it is learly stated in bla bla...
I suggest the reviewer to read the Chapter 3 again.
[comment] this makes me laugh...
any typos and grammar errors of it should be corrected during the review process.
[comment] is this a reviewer's job to correct your topo? it is only a small comment, don't over-react.
Again, I hope that the reviewer should focus more on the scientific merit of the paper by reading through it carefully at least once.
[comment] it is a reviewer's duty to comment on the presentation. How comes the reviewer didn't finish a single reading? These reviewers are surely offended and nobody will be happy to read your rebuff.
For a while, it was very tempting for me to include here the paper which I am accused of copying. But I know that it is not nice to make someone else look like a joke.
[comment] your attitude is terrible, man.
To be kind on my side, in my paper, I have already incorporated the two references by the first reviewer, added a sentence and a paragraph in prospective section for the second reviewer, and deleted the sentence for the third reviewer.
[comment] if you think your reaction to these comments are only "adding"and "deleting" sth, hehe... you count on your own luck.