看不太懂，不知道是大修还是小修！尤其是第一个审稿人的第二条意见和第二个审稿人的第二条意见。先感谢大家了
Dear **

Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.??

For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below.

Your revision is due by?Nov 20, 2015.

Reviewers' comments:


Reviewer #1: The paper is interesting, organized and well written.
1. Notations in the paper have to be more general and consistent. Nomenclature table would have made this article more understandable to our readers.
2. The language is good, however, spelling, grammar and usage checks would make the paper more reachable. For example,the equation (11), (12) and (13) in page 4, it is noting that in page 8, et al.The authors are recommended to check the article thoroughly.
3. The authors should include some future work directions.


Reviewer #2:?
The text requires a major overhaul, and many paragraphs should be rewritten to improve both the syntax and the use of punctuation marks.
The text is full of typos, strange signs appear, often no space is left after the comma or point. Many paragraphs are too long and do not use punctuation correctly, hindering the understanding of concepts.

The scientific content could be improved considering control strategies based to stability index presented, differentiating work on others that only seek stability maps. At least you could outline as future work.



[ Last edited by sysu小虫虫 on 2015-10-22 at 16:36 ] 返回小木虫查看更多