当前位置: 首页 > 论文投稿 >投稿被拒,心塞塞,请各位看一下审稿意见

投稿被拒,心塞塞,请各位看一下审稿意见

作者 王丽萍2500
来源: 小木虫 700 14 举报帖子
+关注

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:
Reviewer #1: I have some comments:
1. The paper generally seems to be well-organized, in particular, the problem description reveals some interesting aspects of the infinite-capacity M/M/1 queuing system with working breakdowns and impatience customers.
2. I however find that the focus of this manuscript is to use the mathematical analytic method to solve some performance measures of M/M/1 queuing system with working breakdowns and impatience customers. But the infinite-capacity M/M/1 queuing system mentioned by this manuscript can be easily simulated by SimEvents module on Simulink platform of Matlab software. I therefore suggest the authors to improve some presentation on the superiority of the mathematical analytic method compared with the simulation method.


Reviewer #2: Review reports on "Analysis of Impatient Customers in Repairable Queue with Working Breakdowns" (JORC-D-18-00080)

This paper analyzes a queueing system with impatient customers and repairable server. The performance measures are given with numerical examples to be provided.

After reading the paper, my general assessment is that it bellows the basic requirement for publication. Hence, I have to recommend rejection. My major concerns are mainly focused on the following two aspects.

1) The paper is full of grammar errors and typos. It does not fit the general (even minimum) requirement for publication. So, I suggest the authors to thoroughly improve the English writing.
2) The technique of analysis is rather standard. The research motivation needs to be more focused. What is the highlight of the paper in terms of scientific significance? Is it a new technique, or does it provide new observations in academic significance or practical application? I am not requiring so many highlights for a paper to be published in JORC, but provide one (or two) point(s) being OK. 返回小木虫查看更多

今日热帖
  • 精华评论
  • ou0551

    问题:创新性文中没有提炼出来或者不足。第一个审稿人比较委婉指出这个问题,第二个由于这个问题直接建议拒。
    建议突出创新点,如果有的话;如果没有,找个突破点啦,

  • NASA5797

    感觉写还是很重要的,LZ做的东西要写出来感觉很牛的样子啊

  • 唐松磊

    摸摸头,还是论文撰写的问题吧。第二个审稿人提到论文的语法还有词语问题。楼主论文写完之后找人润色了吗?

猜你喜欢
下载小木虫APP
与700万科研达人随时交流
  • 二维码
  • IOS
  • 安卓