RE: FW: ESPA 2012 Review Results for submission #1137
Veton Kepuska
Hi Paul,
I agree with your assessment.
1. Didn't adequately explain how we measured -
However, we did explain it given the space we had.
2. Didn't explain the configuration of testing
Perhaps we did not emphasize this fact ...
And yes I did not lost hope in publishing our work.
I Just felt that given the constrains of 4 pages it was hard to satisfactory do what the reviewers were seeking. Remember we have done well over 45 applications - imagine if I had to describe the circumstances (1 and 2 above) under wish we have conducted the experiments for all of them.
Cheers,
-- Dr. Këpuska
|
SmartPhoneE |
The learning and knowledge that we have, is, at the most, but little compared with that of which we are ignorant. - Plato
"Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Veton Këpuska, Associate Professor
ECE Department
Florida Institute of Technology
Olin Engineering Building
150 West University Blvd.
Melbourne, FL 32901-6975
Tel. (321) 674-7183
Mob. (321) 759-3157
E-mail: vkep...@fit.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-----Original Message-----
From: Karaff...@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Karaff...@epamail.epa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:16 AM
To: Veton Kepuska
Subject: Re: FW: ESPA 2012 Review Results for submission #1137
Veton,
Thanks for sending this along and letting me take a look. I actually think this is good news. Let me explain why. There were three reviewers that looked at the paper. One of these reviewers recommended it for publication. The other two had the same two comments which are as
follows:
We didn't adequately explain how we measured - We measured very well
(painstakingly well actually). We just need to articulate it better
in the paper so that reviewers understand our methods better. It was
hard to do this because of the limited space we had to work with but
I think we can do it for the next go around pretty easy.
We didn't explain the configuration of testing - In all honesty, this
is probably why we were rejected. There are a lot of variables that
could skew our data (the reviewer lays out some as being brightness,
size of lcd panel, number of applications running, wifi
configuration, and so on). However, we accounted for all of these and
standardized them. So, we did a good job, but once again we didn't
add it to the paper due to limited space. In the future we just need
to add this. No big deal.
The important thing is that all the reviewers saw merit in the research and found it worthwhile. At this point it is all about articulation. We will do better in December with the finished paper. Also keep in mind that the people we sent it to at IEEE were not people we knew here. We have connections to the actual IEEE magazine which will be better for publication anyway. Would have been nice to have this as a stepping stone though...
We can discuss more if you like.
Let me know.
All the best,
(Embedded image moved to file: pic22086.jpg)
From: "Veton Kepuska" <vkep...@fit.edu>
To: Paul Karaffa/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
Date: 10/25/2011 03:47 PM
Subject: FW: ESPA 2012 Review Results for submission #1137
-----Original Message-----
From: ESPA 2012 Notifications [mailto:pap...@ieee-espa.org]
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 3:34 PM
To: Veton Kepuska; Karraf...@epa.gov; gsha...@my.fit.edu; jacob....@gmail.com; ckoval...@my.fit.edu; jarno...@my.fit.edu; smac...@my.fit.edu
Subject: ESPA 2012 Review Results for submission #1137
Importance: High
Dear Veton Kepuska, Paul Karaffa, Guinevere Shaw, Jacob Zurasky, Christopher Kovalik, Jordan Arnold, Salvador Macaraig
Paper ID: 1137
Title: 'POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FROM USING MOBILE SMART TECHNOLOGIES'
Thank you for submitting the above listed manuscript for consideration for inclusion in the ESPA 2012 program. We regret to inform you that your paper has not been accepted for presentation at the conference.
The reviewers' comments on your paper are attached at the end of this email. These comments served as part of the basis for the Technical Committee's decision and may offer useful feedback that can be used to strengthen your future publication submissions.
The Technical Program Committee carefully selected reviewers for ESPA
2012 and assigned reviewers papers in their areas of expertise. Every paper received at least two reviews and most received three. This year we received 137 submissions and were only able to accept 52 for an acceptance rate of 38%. The Technical Program Committee worked very hard to place as many excellent papers into the program as possible, but the competition was severe and some very good papers were rejected.
While we recognize that this information is disappointing to you, we would encourage you to attend the conference and to enter into discussion with authors whose papers are in your field of interest.
Information on many aspects of ESPA 2012, including the venue, accommodation, tourism, and visa requirements, will be available soon on the conference web site http://ieee-espa.org/, and more will be available soon. The complete technical program will be listed shortly.
For those who will need a visa, please note that the IEEE has strict guidelines that invitation letters for visa purposes can only be sent to people who have completed the registration process. Instructions for requesting an official invitation letter are included in the registration confirmation email.
We look forward to welcoming you in Las Vegas, in January.
Sincerely,
John Apostolopoulos and Alex Acero, ESPA 2012 Technical Program Co-Chairs
---- Comments from the Reviewers: ----
Importance/Relevance: Of sufficient interest
Clarity of Presentation:
General Comments to Authors:
This paper attempts to determine the energy saving benefits from the convergence of consumer products into one smart device, such as a smartphone or tablet compared to single-function products and how smart devices are changing the consumptive behavior of humans.
Even though no new algorithm or application were proposed, I feel the measurement data provided in this paper can be of good reference value to other researcher in this field, and therefore recommend the publication of this paper.
-----
Importance/Relevance: Of limited interest Comment on Importance/Relevance:
The paper mainly presents the measurement results of energy consumption of various smart phones/tablets.
However, the exact way of measuring the energy consumption is stated in a very vague way.
Furthermore, the results depend completely on the ways to measure the energy consumption and how the smart phones/tablets are configured (e.g.
brightness of the LCD, size of LCD panel, how many applications are running, background applications, WiFi and bluetooth configurations, etc).
The measurement results seem to be rather ad hoc.
Clarity of Presentation:
General Comments to Authors:
This paper provides some measurement results for power/energy consumption of wireless devices including smart phones and tablets.
The exact ways of conducting measurement are not spelled out.
The configuration of various wireless devices under measurement are not clarified either.
Furthermore, it is rather difficult to link the measurement results to the conclusion and it is not clear what kind of message authors want to convey.
-----
