24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 1931  |  回复: 11
【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题,作者小强博士将赠送您 50 个金币

小强博士

新虫 (著名写手)

[求助] 关于投稿 已有2人参与

头一天投稿,第二天主编就提了7条意见让大修,主编本人也做过相关领领域的研究,还让对比参考他的一篇文章!下面是给的意见,求助各位有经验的虫子,这篇文章还有戏吗?
I looked into your paper and decided to ask you for several amendments before sending it to full review.
1.You describe the first step of QFD as constructing the house of quality where in fact, the HOQ is one of the 7 QFD tools but not the first.
Presenting QFD as a process of using 4 matrices is also a limitation of the original approach.
Check this https://asq.org/learn-about-qual ... rview/overview.html or https://asq.org/learn-about-qual ... rview/overview.html as readily available descriptions but find an academic source that describe QFD properly and not as in many of the derived papers that carry the error endlessly.
2.Are you familiar with Reich, Y., & Levy, E. (2004). Managing product design quality under resource constraints. International Journal of Production Research, 42(13), 2555-2572?
It proposes a different way to prioritize EC to maximize the quality of the product. Does it have any relation to your approach? Can your approach lead to maximizing the quality of the product? How?   
3.Franceschini (2015) should be Franceschini et al. (2015)
4.Your analysis of the consistency with only l, j, and k ignores significant information about them that comes from their relative position with other CRs. It might be only chance that you got the results as you did in this case study. Is there another way to test it? Is there a "correct" ordering?
5.Using this example to state that your approach "has an obvious advantage" is not supported. Can you provide better empirical evidence? For example, can you create 3-5 other cases and present how you generated them and test again?
6.Computational complexity is usually determined based on the dependence of the number of computational steps with respect to n – number of characteristic parameters; here it could be number of CR or number of respondents or both. Merely stating the number of steps on one problem is irrelevant. Can you offer another way to support this claim? This could also be resolved analytically by showing the details of the algorithm and going through it carefully. It could also be addressed empirically.
7.Since executing the algorithm takes fraction of a second, what is the relevance of efficiency? How many CRs are you expecting to have in a large problem? What is the largest that you encountered ever? It is better to provide data and merely state some concussions that have no practical value.

发自小木虫Android客户端
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
回帖支持 ( 显示支持度最高的前 50 名 )

paperhunter

荣誉版主 (文学泰斗)

还没想好

优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
主编有最终决断权,作为同领域的专家没有质疑楼主所做研究的价值,给出了一些建设性的意见,说明对楼主的文章是认可的。楼主要参考意见仔细修改,如果修改到位,送审后审稿意见不趋于负面,最后被接收的可能性很大。

» 本帖已获得的红花(最新10朵)

咱也是有组织的人了...
4楼2017-04-29 11:20:38
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

纳米材料753

木虫之王 (文学泰斗)

光岳之巅

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
按主编意见好好改  想想怎么引用他的文章  引用合理也许对你还有力

» 本帖已获得的红花(最新10朵)

进取……永无止境!
6楼2017-04-29 15:36:49
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

caolinzk789

禁虫 (正式写手)

本帖内容被屏蔽

» 本帖已获得的红花(最新10朵)

7楼2017-04-29 16:16:39
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
普通回帖

eiri

新虫 (知名作家)

让修还不高兴?

发自小木虫IOS客户端

» 本帖已获得的红花(最新10朵)

2楼2017-04-29 10:36:03
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

小强博士

新虫 (著名写手)

送红花一朵
引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by eiri at 2017-04-29 10:36:03
让修还不高兴?

倒不是不高兴,只是那么快,很没普,而且是没送审主编自己给的

发自小木虫Android客户端
3楼2017-04-29 11:03:40
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

fhg155093180

新虫 (正式写手)

你这算运气好了,好好修改,最终主编决定是否接收

发自小木虫Android客户端
你若不努力去改变世界,这个世界注定会改变你
5楼2017-04-29 13:08:37
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
8楼2017-04-29 16:25:55
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

小强博士

新虫 (著名写手)

送红花一朵
引用回帖:
7楼: Originally posted by caolinzk789 at 2017-04-29 16:16:39
主编很懂啊,相当于先给你审了一遍稿子,意见对你论文很有帮助,修了再投。我感觉希望很大,要不然也废这些时间给你这么多专业的意见。

但愿啊,谢谢!

发自小木虫Android客户端
9楼2017-04-29 16:27:03
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

小强博士

新虫 (著名写手)

送红花一朵
引用回帖:
4楼: Originally posted by paperhunter at 2017-04-29 11:20:38
主编有最终决断权,作为同领域的专家没有质疑楼主所做研究的价值,给出了一些建设性的意见,说明对楼主的文章是认可的。楼主要参考意见仔细修改,如果修改到位,送审后审稿意见不趋于负面,最后被接收的可能性很大。

嗯嗯,非常感谢

发自小木虫Android客户端
10楼2017-04-30 07:22:43
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 小强博士 的主题更新
不应助 确定回帖应助 (注意:应助才可能被奖励,但不允许灌水,必须填写15个字符以上)
信息提示
请填处理意见