2015年9月29日 星期二
被論文審查整整綁架一個禮拜，寶貴的七天沒了。
一直無法形成具體念頭。
昨天實在不得已，開電腦，尋找以前做的論文，幸好一個江同學的論文還在。
把系統圖印出來，把待審論文作的東西放進自己熟悉的框架中，立刻，瞭解他做了些什麼。
人類的認知，是需要格式的，格式不合，難以理解。
整整浪費我寶貴的七天，707C九月房租一直沒交，人也無聲無息，困於審查這篇論文，無暇去追究。
下午寫出審查意見：
「
………
However, the works, as how they are done and how the “new washout filter” they created looks like, are not clearly represented by the context of the paper. For example, figure 6, which should give a clear-cut overall outlook of the whole system, is meager and ambiguous. The important work, namely the optimization as well as the defining of the acceleration profile, should have their places in figure 6. The authors talked about “switch-off” of the presented actuator constrained MCA to make it function like a classical washout filter, but how to do this? Presumably by neutralizing equations (36), (37) or discarding the optimization process. But the maneuver of this “switching off” should be recognizable in the system block diagram.
A new figure 6 is needed to speak for all this.
And it is recommended to improve the context to silhouette the indispensability of the work they selected to do. For example, an introductory explanation can convince readers the advantages (and necessity) of an acceleration profile. Currently it appeared to be a convenient plucking of previous contribution. Only one or two sentences suffice, but they must be convincing.
Is the optimization an iterative process? How fast is it so that it can be performed in a platform that runs with I kHz sample frequency?
At this moment, the improvement of the new actuator constrained MCA appears to be the direct effect of acceleration constraints, equations (36), (37). If so, the contribution of this work barely justifies it for a journal paper.
The merits and contributions can be better evaluated when a revised version of the paper is prepared.
」
{{ article.title }}