Return-Path: akira@st.cs.deu.edu.tr Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lulu.cs.deu.edu.tr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00244 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:39:10 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from akira@st.cs.deu.edu.tr) Received: from cs.deu.edu.tr by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.0.0) for akira@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 06 Apr 2001 15:39:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from afrodit ([193.140.150.104]) by cs.deu.edu.tr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.1600); Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:15:54 +0300 Message-ID: <002b01c0be60$f1d85b80$68968cc1@deuceng> From: "Akira Imada" To: Subject: Fw: Paper rejected from IWANN2001 (ref. 120) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:15:14 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2001 06:15:54.0921 (UTC) FILETIME=[09A3D190:01C0BE61] ----- Original Message ----- From: Jose Mira To: Akira Imada Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 4:39 AM Subject: Paper rejected from IWANN2001 (ref. 120) > Dear Prof. Imada, > I regret to inform you that your paper: > * "A Study of Hill Shape by a Downhill Walk: Why does the Hebbian Peak Resist to be Found?" > has been rejected for IWANN2001 conference. Below you can > find the comments from the referees about the paper. Please, note > that the rejection decision has been based on the recommendations > of the referees with many criteria like technical quality, fitness > to IWANN2001 topics, newness, clarity, format requirements, etc. > > Yours sincerely, > > Jose Mira > IWANN2001 General Chairman > http://iwann.dia.uned.es/iwann2001/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Comments for authors about paper (ref. 120) > "A Study of Hill Shape by a Downhill Walk: Why does the Hebbian Peak Resist to be Found?": > > - The paper is extremly hard to understand. Several mistakes in the notations increase this difficulty. > - The paper is not very clear. Only some guessings and clues are given but the results are about individual examples with specific values not well explained. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- >