================================================================================================= #001 Learning action of skilled operator for autonomous mobile robot control Not possible to image a good paper/presentation from this just 8 lines abstract. => reject ================================================================================================= #003 Optimizing robot behaviour in the maze by GA Nothing new at all in this short abstract. => reject ================================================================================================= #014 Induction Magnetic Field Sensor as an Organ of Robot Perception (1) First of all, you should show your paper is an original one. The reviewer wonders how this is unique. (2) Second, proof-read more carfully. For example "for these to be" might be "for them to be." You wrote "010 Hz frequency region," but what is this? What is SuFET? What is "cryogenic device?" Or, none of the reader would not be happy when come accorss the expression like "Magnetic induction BPC of AC MF with the frequency limb of limbs' oscillations produce an e.m.f. in PC." (3) Third, you should improve the expressions of equations. ================================================================================================= #019 Research on the Security of Web Services Model Based on P2P (1) Avoid Abbreviation/Acronim in abstract. "P2P" should be written like "peer to peer" or "peer to peer (P2P)" if necessary. The same goes "MAC" and "XML." (2) Give full description at the first appearance of the term if not it's really popular term. What is RPC? Do the authors think everyone who try to read this paper know these terms? The reviewer do not think so. And, IMHO, P2P is not "a new technology" any more nowadays. How can we know the proposal works without any experimental results? => not accept ================================================================================================= #045 Programing Trajectory of Robot controlled via LPT port This short abstract says nothing scientific or technological interesting topic. The reviewer could not imagine this paper will be improved if authors have additional time to prepare. => reject ================================================================================================= #046 Data Acquisition and Processing using a SOA for an automated Inspection System (1) The authors wrote, "During the development of the inspection system it became evident, that our architecture provided a flexible yet well structured basis for the construction," but this is what we want to know how, which should be in the text of the paper not in Conclusion. (2) Unless it's not so popular, define terms when it appears for the 1st time. What is CORBA? (3) Proof read carefully. For example "is send" should be "is sent." => accept on condition that highly improved. ================================================================================================= #125 Vision system for mobile robot (1) Before submission authors should proof-read. Many bugs like "less power then CCD." Also basic format of the paper such as "indent" are found. (2) Nothing new seems to be proposed. (3) This kind of paper should be appear in a conference at least project proceeds with real stages before describing "future research." => reject ================================================================================================= #142 FPGA Implementation of Nonlinear Neural ADC-based Temperature Measurement system The reviwer felt this something like an excersize of the text book. ================================================================================================= #152 Electronic Nose Based on Metal Oxide Semiconductor Sensors as an Alternative Technique for the Spoilage Classification of Red Meat (1) The expariment is well organized and its description is good. (2) What the reviewer wants is that authors should claim not only the advantage of the proposed method but its uniqueness, since similar experiments might be already published. How could the author think that they claim this paper is unique as a report in a conference? Conference is not a meeting in a food company? While usually it is shown using a list of references, but in this paper the references in the list do not seem to be enough for the purpose. ================================================================================================= #119 The Local Area Map Building for Mobile Robot Navigation Using Ultrasound and Infrared Sensors (1) First of all, the paper is well organized. Very good. (2) But more careful proof-read will be necessary. For example, "allow independently execute" might be "allow us to independently execute" or "At the general cases" might be "In the general case," etc. Those are not exhaustive but two more here, "inputted" should be "input," and "in in" should be "in." (3) Also should be corrected the format. For example, do not indent "where f1 and f2 ... " or "and the linear ..." etc. Or "k-neuron" is better to be written as "k-th neuron" or "neuron-k." (4) The authors wrote "The existed statistical method has disadvantages and it has not intelligent ... readings from the sensors." But the reviewer wanders in what way and how? (5) As for the description "it is necessary to limit the training of NNs to ... [to avoid the] effect of their converting into associative memory," the reviewer wants more detailed explanation. (6) Finally, the author claimed this a "new method," but how we can know it's new? The references listed are all some what of old ones. The reviewer expects the paper to be much better improved.