ÒÔǰ¶¼±»¾Ü£¬µÚÒ»´ÎÊÕµ½reviseµÄÒâ¼û£¬Á½¸öÉó¸åÈË£º
Reviewer #1: The paper presents a valuable study on XXXXXX. This is an interesting paper, well written and presented. Taking into account both presentation and contributions this paper deserves to be considered for the publication on Knowledge-based systems.
Reviewer #2: Dear authors,
I found your paper very interesting, however, I have several suggestions to improve it:
(ÖмäÁÐÁË10¶àÌõÒâ¼û£¬»¹Ëã±È½ÏºÃ¸Ä)£¬
-- suggestion 1
-- suggestion 2
.
.
.
-- suggestion n
¿ÉÊÇ£¬Éó¸åÈË×îºó˵£º
In resume, I think it has merits enough to be accepted, but the writing could be improve to make it easier to understand, specially the rol of the experts in the article.
ÇëÎÊ£¬×îºóÒ»Ìõ×ܽáÐÔµÄÔõôresponse°¡£¬ÌرðÊÇ¡°but the writing could be improve to make it easier to understand¡±£¬ ÕâÍæÒâ¶ùÕ¦¸Ä°¡£¿£¿
BTW£¬Õâ¸öÊôÓÚmajor revise »¹ÊÇminor revise°¡£¿
[ Last edited by bear1984 on 2011-10-27 at 07:52 ] |