24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 2469  |  回复: 14

王丽萍2500

新虫 (正式写手)

[交流] 投稿被拒,心塞塞,请各位看一下审稿意见已有5人参与

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.
回复此楼
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

王丽萍2500

新虫 (正式写手)

感觉第一个审稿人是修,第二个是拒

发自小木虫Android客户端
2楼2018-10-22 16:53:25
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

903279943

新虫 (著名写手)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by 王丽萍2500 at 2018-10-22 16:53:25
感觉第一个审稿人是修,第二个是拒

是的,第一个审稿人还挺nice,第二个就是找了一些问题把你拒了

发自小木虫Android客户端
3楼2018-10-22 17:08:00
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

geniuswp

禁虫 (小有名气)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
本帖内容被屏蔽

4楼2018-10-22 17:10:15
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

王丽萍2500

新虫 (正式写手)

引用回帖:
3楼: Originally posted by 903279943 at 2018-10-22 17:08:00
是的,第一个审稿人还挺nice,第二个就是找了一些问题把你拒了
...

心塞塞

发自小木虫Android客户端
5楼2018-10-22 17:12:08
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

王丽萍2500

新虫 (正式写手)

引用回帖:
4楼: Originally posted by geniuswp at 2018-10-22 17:10:15
感觉两个审稿人都觉得文章创新性不够

写的还是不够好吧,不过,创新点是有的,可能在文中没有表达出来吧

发自小木虫Android客户端
6楼2018-10-22 17:13:00
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

903279943

新虫 (著名写手)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
引用回帖:
6楼: Originally posted by 王丽萍2500 at 2018-10-22 17:13:00
写的还是不够好吧,不过,创新点是有的,可能在文中没有表达出来吧
...

创新点这个东西审稿人说你有就有,说你没有就没有,每个人的看法不一致,也没有评判标准。

发自小木虫Android客户端
7楼2018-10-22 17:17:46
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

王丽萍2500

新虫 (正式写手)

说的有道理,继续努力吧

发自小木虫Android客户端
8楼2018-10-22 18:02:57
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

王丽萍2500

新虫 (正式写手)

引用回帖:
7楼: Originally posted by 903279943 at 2018-10-22 17:17:46
创新点这个东西审稿人说你有就有,说你没有就没有,每个人的看法不一致,也没有评判标准。
...

有道理

发自小木虫Android客户端
9楼2018-10-22 18:03:07
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

ou0551

木虫 (正式写手)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
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。
10楼2018-11-04 07:49:55
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 王丽萍2500 的主题更新
普通表情 高级回复(可上传附件)
信息提示
请填处理意见