我是6月19号投的，7月12号给分配的AE，23号收到的结果

两个都是reject，副编辑给了推荐重投。第一个审稿人还行，拒稿但是推荐重投。第二个不让重投的嘛，估计连背景和目标都没看，只说我用的蚁群肯定没创新就直接拒了，但是又给了几个看起来不怎么相关的参考文献让引用并对比。这几个参考文献还有一篇17年的一区，也是蚁群算法。。纳闷要不要申请换个审稿人

Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: Reject (update and resubmit encouraged)

Comments:
In this paper author has focused on the problem of VM placement problem for storage device.Where through the proposed solution of Multi objective Ant Colony System author(s) goal is to find an optimum solution which can maximize the revenue and minimize the power consumption. Although the paper is written quite well but there are so many problem which needs to be revised are as follows:
-The authors do not define their problem space clearly.
-There is also a substantial lack of an evaluation of their proposal as the given results are not satisfactory.
-Their solution is stated without logical intuition as to what exactly they intend to achieve.
-Can yon discuss the complexity of the system/method/algorithm/model?
-Also there is strong discussion needed to prove it as optimum solution with minimum power consumption and maximum revenue of communications.
-Conclusion section should be validated by the analysis of result and also should be -compared with other existing methods by incorporating the facts, which are missing.


Additional Questions:
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Yes but in some area it needs revision

Is the paper technically sound?: yes

Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: yes

Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: yes


Reviewer: 2

Recommendation: Reject (do not encourage resubmit)

Comments:
The application of ACO to the problem of VM placement is not novel. Several key references of the existing literature, such as https://www.sciencedirect.com/sc ... i/S2215098616304232, https://www.sciencedirect.com/sc ... i/S0022000013000627, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-13461-1_16, are missing. The authors should encompass them in their analysis and motivate why they are novel with respect to them. I see that only an additional constraint, on the traffic intensity, is added, which is not a proof of novelty in my opinion.

Additional Questions:
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: I do not see novelty in such a work as ACO has been exhaustivelly used to deal with the problem of Virtual Machine placement.

Is the paper technically sound?: Yes

Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Yes

Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: No, key references to the similar related works are not available. 返回小木虫查看更多