24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (4259)
>文献求助 (402)
>导师招生 (306)
>虫友互识 (208)
>论文投稿 (142)
>考博 (130)
>博后之家 (121)
>休闲灌水 (119)
>公派出国 (88)
>考研 (88)
>硕博家园 (87)
>基金申请 (71)
>论文道贺祈福 (61)
>教师之家 (59)
>找工作 (51)
>招聘信息布告栏 (33)

返回列表

【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者andycoy将赠送您 19 个金币

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

andycoy

木虫 (著名写手)

应助: 69 (初中生)
金币: 3536.2
散金: 5029
红花: 21
帖子: 1871
在线: 961.9小时
虫号: 1321484
注册: 2011-06-12
性别: GG
专业: 统计学其他学科

[求助] 请教这种审稿意见如何回复？

Expert Systems with Applications退修，主编让修改，但其中有一个审稿专家的意见不好回复。
Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. For your guidance, three reviewers' comments are appended below. 这句话的意思是审稿专家都建议修改？
Reviewer #2:
Short review:
Each of the MADM (multi-attribute decision-making) methods has its normalization technique. The TOPSIS method uses vector normalization, and then after weighting, calculates the relative distance from the ideally best and worst alternatives. The authors use compromise normalization according to M. Zeleny. Therefore, they present not TOPSIS method. Moreover, when compromise values are determined, they again looking for compromise (or relative distance). Thus, they commit an agreement.
Besides, it is easy to show that the entropy method is not a proper means to determine criteria weights as this approach not express the relative importance of criteria as achieving goals of stakeholders. It is right mean to manipulate with stakeholders' opinion about goals importance. For example, if decision-maker knows the properties of the entropy method, he could quickly change criteria weights by adding not important criteria to stakeholder, and show that the added criterion is the most significant to the stakeholder. Moreover, adding alternative or deleting of an alternative significantly could change criteria weights.

我研究的对象是熵权TOPSIS的一些性质，审稿人很了解我研究的方法，对方法本身提出了很有针对性的意见，也指出熵权法不适合确定权重（这样子似乎研究熵权TOPSIS没有意义了），但也没说论文如何修改，行不行。还有Short review这个说法没见过。请教大家这种意见怎么修改回复？

回复此楼