24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

王丽萍2500

新虫 (正式写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 19.8
散金: 430
红花: 1
帖子: 343
在线: 52.2小时
虫号: 7396495
注册: 2017-10-30
专业: 运筹学

[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