文章修改过一次
这是第二次的审稿意见
编辑的意见
Reviewers have now commented on your paper. In particular, I suggest to you to reflect on the Report of Reviewer #2. Under these conditions, I should reject the paper. However, assuming you will deeply revise the paper (not a mere re-styling), it can be considered as a Techical Note (no more that 10 pages, double spaced, including Abstract and References).
When revising your work, please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript.
审稿人1的审稿意见:
This is the second review of the paper. The new version of the manuscript addresses only partially the questions raised by this referee. This referee asked the authors to provide a convergence analysis of the algorithms proposed. This analysis has not been provided. Moreover Section 6 Numerical Examples has not being improved, the test problems considered are too simple to
be interesting. As it is the paper does not t in JOTA in fact the heavy machinery used does not produce mathematical understanding (no convergence analysis of the algorithm proposed) or practically relevant results (only textbook exercises are studied).
I suggest to reject this paper.
审稿人2的意见:
The authors have revised the paper following the reviewer suggestions. In particular in this revised version of the paper an interesting comparison between the results presented in this paper and those presented in [1] is done.
I think that in its present form the paper is complete. I suggest to accept the paper for publication.
审稿人1提出的问题比较麻烦,我感觉应付不了
想问下各位 继续修改的话(按Techical Note 要求修改)还有没有可能接收 |