How to avoid a paper being rejected by IEEE reviewer?

[ppAntenna]

writing paper

I 'm a MPhil student and the research topic is about antenna design.
How can I avoid my paper rejected by IEEE reviewer??
My paper already rejected by IEEE AP.
Anyone can share their writing paper skill??

 

[flatulent]

tell you why

Did the reviewer tell you why they rejected it?

 

[ppAntenna]

They say my design is similar to other patent.
But I havn't get any idea from them. I havn't seen the patent before!
I upset about this for 2 days
But anyway thanks flatulent! I just want to find someone to share this.

BTW flatulent,
Do you know how to define what is the excite mode in the patch antenna??
How to design an patch antenna in higher order mode??

 

[Element7k]

Exitation of patch in higer order mode

Hi,

Sorry to hear about your sad news. I have seen lots of antennas or all shapes and sizes being patent for specific application these days. (They don't seem novel to me as the only change was the shape of antennas; anyone can do that with an EDA software) That is bad as it leaves new researchers little space to develop.

I think higer order mode of patch antennas can be excited by many ways. e.g changing the geomentry of the patch or feed. There exist a formula to calculate the normalised excitation frequency of TMxy mode in Pozar's book on Microstrip antennas.

Cheers,
Element7k

 

[flatulent]

similar experience

I had a similar experience back in my school days. I devised a circuit design that could be done by hand. It was rejected. Some months later the same thing was published in the same journal using a complex way with obscure math functions that hid the simple way of looking at the circuit I proposed.

Since then I adopted the philosophy that income is more important than status. I put all of my efforts into helping others and making a living.

One question. Did your work use mathematical formulas or was it a simulation only? Even if the antenna is patented, math analysis is new information worthy of publication.

 

[ronsmithy]

I have reviewed several papers and have seen several odd things happen:

1. Some guys I work with submitted a very good paper on a mixer, but they were rejected and a paper on a similar subject was accepted because it was from someone who has a "name." I am often at paper selection meetings and papers are accepted because of the names of one of the authors, not on the papers merit. Not fair and I don't like it, but it happens. Does your paper run parallel to someone's work? Someone who is well published?

2. Do all the authors report the same results? Usually your paper is passed out to at least three authors. You should see the results of more than one author. The reviewers have two sections to fill out in a review, one for the author to see and one for only the editor to see. Do all of the reviewers comments agree?

3. Do you have any experimental results? Unless the paper is specifically stated to be a paper not requiring any results (and I can think of very few instances) it should be rejected. I don't know how many circuit papers I get where the author designs a circuit, does excellent theoretical development and then only gives simulated data.

4. If the AP rejected this, try the MTT-S. Specifically the IEEE MICROWAVE AND WIRELESS COMPONENTS LETTERS (L-MWC), which used to be known as the IEEE Microwave and Guided Wave Letters. Also the MTT-S transactions would be another alternative.

5. Now that you are aware of the patent, you could re-write the paper to add a section to contrast the differences between your design and the patent and any enhancements you have added. But if you do, you might be ruining a potential patent for yourself!

-Ron

 

[Gemini1706]

quick question to ronsmithy and others about paper acceptance:
If I wrote a paper, and the work is not novel and uses an old technique that is rarely mentioned, can I still publish this paper with experimental results...etc. The purpose of the paper is just a reminder and re-birth of an old technique. It is not something new. It is more like tutorial to refresh memories and give hopes to known method that died for a while...

Is this type of paper acceptable?
I rarely come across a paper describing something that is REALLY new and novel. Most of it are just showing the same thing from different angles...etc.

Can such paper be accepted..?

 

[flatulent]

scientific

Only new ideas are published in scientific journals. Industrial magazines willingly accept articles of interenst to their readers such as your re-presentation of a forgotten idea.