24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

BayesInter

专家顾问 (正式写手)

专家经验: +12
应助: 4 (幼儿园)
金币: 929.8
帖子: 327
在线: 284.6小时
虫号: 2448875

[交流] 审稿意见回来后，如何处理不合理的返修意见？

我之前投了运筹优化领域的一个期刊ejor，第一轮审稿意见回来后，有三个专家，我按照他们的意见做了相应的修改并提交了回去，现在结果又回来了，第二和三个审稿人的意见是可以接收了。但是第一个审稿人reviewer 1又提出了两个意见，这两个意见我认为是不能改的，我个人认为是reviewer 1没正确理解文章所做出的不合理意见。然后主编看到这种情况，就有了以下的决定。

主编：
As you can see from the reports enclosed, the referees hold conflicting views on your paper. In these circumstances, it has been decided that your paper should be reconsidered for publication in the EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH if you will revise it to meet the enclosed referees' comments. (You may wish to argue that some comments are invalid).

The most critical comments from Reviewer #1 made me doubt whether I should reconsider your paper, so I need convincing arguments from you and a thorough revision to counterbalance the critical comments.

When resubmitting the revised paper, please provide your answers to the referees, separately for each referee. Please also ensure that you have cited recent and relevant publications in EJOR and other OR journals.

I am most grateful for your interest and hope that you will not be deterred from resubmitting this paper in the very near future.

You are advised to revise and resubmit your manuscript by the Mar 09, 2026. After this time the review process of this submission will be terminated, by withdrawing your paper from the Editorial Manager, and the revised paper will have to be submitted as a new submission.

Reviewer #2: All my comments have been suitably addressed. I recommend that this paper be accepted in its present version. I congratulate the authors on a very interesting paper with a solid contribution.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for your careful and meticulous revision. In this revision, I find that the manuscript has fully responded to the reviewer comments from the first round. The writing and flow has been substantially improved, and the motivations, contributions, literature review, and conclusions were carefully revised. The parameter settings for the case studies have also been sufficiently justified, and I appreciate the additional figures and plots to help the audience understand the results.
The quality of the article has been substantially improved after addressing all the comments from the reviewers. I have no remaining requests for revision, and I appreciate your thorough and professional response.
Good luck with your future research.

Reviewer #1: Thanks for the efforts that the authors have put into revising the manuscript. However, I feel that my earlier concerns have not been fully addressed. And in my view, the current version has not yet reached the standard required for publication in EJOR. Below, I outline the major points that still need attention.
意见1：。。。。。。
意见2：。。。。。。意见1和2我就不详细列出来了，因为涉及具体的文章内容。
Overall, I like the method proposed by the authors and I can see the value, however, I find that both the depth of analysis and the clarity of presentation still require substantial improvement.

现在我的可选行动方案是：
(1) 我不会再修改了，但是给主编发个邮件，解释Reviewer #1的两个个人认为不合理的意见，然后改投另一个期刊。
(2) 我不可能再大修了，但会做一些句子连贯上的小修，然后在Response letter写出个人认为的修改意见的不合理之处，然后再重新提交ejor，我估计会不被接受，所以这时候是不是系统上只有这一次新的submission的拒绝记录(如果不被接受)？因为之前的submission和Reviewer2和3的意见都被删除了？

如果我采取方案2，然后被拒绝后再去投其它omaga一类的期刊会不会有什么影响？

谢谢~

回复此楼