投稿European Journal of Operational Research求助！
有投过European Journal of Operational Research的虫友吗？向您请教一个问题？
我11年初向European Journal of Operational Research投了一篇稿子，11年末编辑回信拒了，回信如下：
I am enclosing below the referees' comments on your paper, which has received very serious consideration.
The paper is presently unacceptable because of deficiencies listed in the reports, although the idea is interesting. As there is some potential for a good paper, we encourage you to continue your research in this direction and to resubmit a re-written paper to the EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH when it will be ready.
From my experience, a new submission which has a fair chance to be finally
accepted, needs a considerable amount of work and time. So please do not
mistake this decision to be of the type "major revision and
re-evaluation". At this stage, it is a rejection, to my regret.
In addition, I would suggest you provide a detailed response to the
referee's remarks (only in this respect, the procedure is similar to the
"major revision" case). This would speed up the procedure next time.
经过修改后于12年初重投给该杂志，最近编辑回信又拒了，回信如下：
I am enclosing below the referees' comments on your paper, which has received very serious consideration.
The paper is presently unacceptable because of deficiencies listed in the reports, although the idea is interesting. As there is some potential for a good paper, we encourage you to continue your research in this direction and to resubmit a re-written paper to the EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH when it will be ready.
From my experience, a new submission which has a fair chance to be finally
accepted, needs a considerable amount of work and time. So please do not
mistake this decision to be of the type "major revision and
re-evaluation". At this stage, it is a rejection, to my regret.
In addition, I would suggest you provide a detailed response to the
referee's remarks (only in this respect, the procedure is similar to the
"major revision" case). This would speed up the procedure next time.
通过审稿意见可以看出审稿人还是原先的两个审稿人，两个人都要求修改。
我想请教一下有过European Journal of Operational Research投稿经验的朋友，上面的两次回信一模一样，是不是都是European Journal of Operational Research编辑们拒稿的模版啊。编辑其实只是客套一下，事实上并不喜欢你的文章，并不准备接受你的文章。如果是这种情况的话，我就不再重投这个杂志了。
还是编辑就是这样，拒了让你修改重投，再拒了再让你修改重投，直至接收，中间没有大修或小修这种状态。如果是这种情况的话，那我就继续修改再重投这个杂志了。
[ Last edited by seapass on 2012-4-14 at 14:16 ]
返回小木虫查看更多
京公网安备 11010802022153号
你看看专家的审稿意见是不是两次都一样啊？如果不一样，说明编辑的信只是个模版，如果审稿人的审稿意见一样，那有可能是发错了。
不同期刊有点不一样，但是这个应该是个模板回复，应该都还附上其他修改意见吧
有具体的审稿意见，两次好像都是相同的审稿人。
有具体的审稿意见，两次好像都是相同的审稿人。
相同的审稿人没问题，给你找相同的审稿人就是为了缩短审稿周期。问题是人家的意见是不是不同，如果不同就要综合考虑两次的审稿意见，好好修改文章。看得出，人家还是认为你的文章还是有亮点的，所以得好好改。相当于重写。
两次意见不一样。
我把最近的审稿意见发给您，您帮我看看：
Reviewer Comments:
Reviewer #1:
In my side of view this paper has some originality regarding to its application. Even, the author tries to mix different theories with each others, finally it give a bright-full results. However, I think there are lots of area that should be corrected and I think it was because of different amendments which were added to this paper after its first review.
1- The introduction is completely vast however it becomes to complicated while it just speak about history of the methods in details but it doesn't go through their application and definitions in general during introduction of the paper. I recommend author to re-structured the introduction and make it more readable for scholars.
2- It is a necessary to add a graphical chart at the end of introduction to avoid complication among history. the graphical chart should show the different areas that author mentioned about them and then it should illustrate the interactions and finally the contribution of this paper should be stared in the figure. It help to show the area of knowledge that author was explored in his study.
3- the contribution of this paper should be more highlighted at the end of introduction.
4- some small English errors should be corrected such as page one, line 48, in the middle, it should be "in recent years,..."
5- the structure of paper does not obey the standard form of normal academic papers, maybe some definitions should come under methodology, and results and discussions should be more highlighted rather than lots of complicated Remarks.
6- Since the strength of this paper is more in its application, it needs to be more strong on this issue. The examples should be more applied and even some example could be comparative example which shows any differences between this method and previous ones.
7- In page 3, Line 30, It is not suitable for academic paper to use "we"!
8- The procedure of this method should be illustrated by aid of graphical chart.
9- Conclusion should be more precise.
10- Using lots of references even at the end of the paper in remarks and results is not common and suitable at all. maybe they can be introduced as a significance of study in the introduction and at the end, the contributions should be mentioned alone.
11- Technically I like this mathematical solution in decision making. However, it will be so complicated for some scholars!
Reviewer #2:
The paper must be completely restructured.
Indeed, in its current form, the author presents:
- A set of definitions, remarks, examples, but without given textual explanations before giving the mathematical formulation.
- There are no apparent links between the different definitions, sections, etc. etc.
It should be important to:
- Explain with few words or in few lines, what is the contribution of the each definition.
- Propose the definitions with explanations, positioning, and links with what follow.
- Highlight the most important definitions to highlight the contribution of the author proportion.
On page 11, page where the author presents the proposal, we find a set of definitions, remarks and examples.
At page 11: It would be interesting that the author present the examples discussed by (Feng et al. 2010a) (Jiang et al. 2010a), and position its results regarding the obtained results by these authors. The goal is to have some elements of comparison.
Page 20: At the end of section 3 (proposed approach) there is no balance and the relationship between sections 3 and 4 (the author deal with 'Weighted interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets based decision making', again without link, explanations .).
We must wait the page 25 for having explanations: the author explains the benefits of its proposition, but as he does not position this proposition regarding other examples (examples discussed in (Feng et al. 2010a) (Jiang et al. 2010a)) ? The interest is not highlighted.
At the end of page 25, the explanations are presented without giving links with the different definitions, remarks, examples (presented at the beginning of the paper) ? the benefit of the proposed approach is less visible.
It is also the case for 'Weighted interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets based decision making' section. Moreover, the author does not position its proposition, without links .
A discussion on the types of problems that can be used with the proposed approach is important.
What about the following works: (Wang et al., 2009), (Zhang, 2011) regarding the proposed paper:
Zhoujing Wang, Kevin W. Li, Weize Wang, 2009, An approach to multiattribute decision making with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy assessments and incomplete weights. Information Sciences 179, 3026-3040.
Zhiming Zhang, 2011, A rough set approach to intuitionistic fuzzy soft set based decision making. Applied Mathematical Modelling
，