| 查看: 2883 | 回复: 14 | |||
| 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 | |||
[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» 猜你喜欢
我不理解！
已经有27人回复
-
要骂人了，新模版改版就是要淡化问题凝练这种虚的东西，结果有个评委还在说凝练得不够
已经有16人回复
-
基金系统什么内容也没有
已经有10人回复
-
科研人应该花精力去思考如何解决问题，而不是去凝练问题
已经有8人回复
-
学科评审组评审是指会评吗？
已经有5人回复
-
梦想
已经有8人回复
-
面上合作单位盖章
已经有9人回复
-
面上函评意见出来了，像什么等级？
已经有17人回复
-
为什么资助数各大高校都创新高，自己申请怎么就这么难
已经有14人回复
-
小白求助 投论文要求的highlights应该如何写
已经有4人回复
9楼2018-10-22 18:03:07
2楼2018-10-22 16:53:25
903279943
新虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 1 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 2165.4
- 散金: 4634
- 红花: 10
- 帖子: 1731
- 在线: 382.3小时
- 虫号: 1488805
- 注册: 2011-11-12
- 专业: 环境地球化学
3楼2018-10-22 17:08:00
★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
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
20