24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 3412  |  回复: 18

zhzimi_2007

木虫 (职业作家)

[求助] 投稿European Journal of Operational Research求助!

有投过European Journal of Operational Research的虫友吗?向您请教一个问题?
我11年初向European Journal of Operational Research投了一篇稿子,11年末编辑回信拒了,回信如下:
I am enclosing below the referees' comments on your paper, which has received very serious consideration.

The paper is presently unacceptable because of deficiencies listed in the reports, although the idea is interesting. As there is some potential for a good paper, we encourage you to continue your research in this direction and to resubmit a re-written paper to the EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH when it will be ready.

From my experience, a new submission which has a fair chance to be finally
accepted, needs a considerable amount of work and time. So please do not
mistake this decision to be of the type "major revision and
re-evaluation". At this stage, it is a rejection, to my regret.

In addition, I would suggest you provide a detailed response to the
referee's remarks (only in this respect, the procedure is similar to the
"major revision" case). This would speed up the procedure next time.

经过修改后于12年初重投给该杂志,最近编辑回信又拒了,回信如下:
I am enclosing below the referees' comments on your paper, which has received very serious consideration.

The paper is presently unacceptable because of deficiencies listed in the reports, although the idea is interesting. As there is some potential for a good paper, we encourage you to continue your research in this direction and to resubmit a re-written paper to the EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH when it will be ready.

From my experience, a new submission which has a fair chance to be finally
accepted, needs a considerable amount of work and time. So please do not
mistake this decision to be of the type "major revision and
re-evaluation". At this stage, it is a rejection, to my regret.

In addition, I would suggest you provide a detailed response to the
referee's remarks (only in this respect, the procedure is similar to the
"major revision" case). This would speed up the procedure next time.


通过审稿意见可以看出审稿人还是原先的两个审稿人,两个人都要求修改。
我想请教一下有过European Journal of Operational Research投稿经验的朋友,上面的两次回信一模一样,是不是都是European Journal of Operational Research编辑们拒稿的模版啊。编辑其实只是客套一下,事实上并不喜欢你的文章,并不准备接受你的文章。如果是这种情况的话,我就不再重投这个杂志了。

还是编辑就是这样,拒了让你修改重投,再拒了再让你修改重投,直至接收,中间没有大修或小修这种状态。如果是这种情况的话,那我就继续修改再重投这个杂志了。

[ Last edited by seapass on 2012-4-14 at 14:16 ]
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐,对您同样有帮助:

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

啸天犬

至尊木虫 (职业作家)

【答案】应助回帖

★ ★
感谢参与,应助指数 +1
zhzimi_2007: 金币+2 2012-04-14 14:12:52
你看看专家的审稿意见是不是两次都一样啊?如果不一样,说明编辑的信只是个模版,如果审稿人的审稿意见一样,那有可能是发错了。
天下兴亡,我的责任!
2楼2012-04-11 09:36:59
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

seapass

至尊木虫 (职业作家)

超哥

优秀版主

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
不同期刊有点不一样,但是这个应该是个模板回复,应该都还附上其他修改意见吧
独上高楼。。。
3楼2012-04-11 09:38:00
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

zhzimi_2007

木虫 (职业作家)

引用回帖:
3楼: Originally posted by seapass at 2012-04-11 09:38:00:
不同期刊有点不一样,但是这个应该是个模板回复,应该都还附上其他修改意见吧

有具体的审稿意见,两次好像都是相同的审稿人。
4楼2012-04-11 09:40:52
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

zhzimi_2007

木虫 (职业作家)

引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by 啸天犬 at 2012-04-11 09:36:59:
你看看专家的审稿意见是不是两次都一样啊?如果不一样,说明编辑的信只是个模版,如果审稿人的审稿意见一样,那有可能是发错了。

有具体的审稿意见,两次好像都是相同的审稿人。
5楼2012-04-11 09:41:35
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

啸天犬

至尊木虫 (职业作家)

【答案】应助回帖

相同的审稿人没问题,给你找相同的审稿人就是为了缩短审稿周期。问题是人家的意见是不是不同,如果不同就要综合考虑两次的审稿意见,好好修改文章。看得出,人家还是认为你的文章还是有亮点的,所以得好好改。相当于重写。
天下兴亡,我的责任!
6楼2012-04-11 09:43:37
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

zhzimi_2007

木虫 (职业作家)

引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by 啸天犬 at 2012-04-11 09:36:59:
你看看专家的审稿意见是不是两次都一样啊?如果不一样,说明编辑的信只是个模版,如果审稿人的审稿意见一样,那有可能是发错了。

两次意见不一样。
7楼2012-04-11 09:45:28
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

zhzimi_2007

木虫 (职业作家)

引用回帖:
6楼: Originally posted by 啸天犬 at 2012-04-11 09:43:37:
相同的审稿人没问题,给你找相同的审稿人就是为了缩短审稿周期。问题是人家的意见是不是不同,如果不同就要综合考虑两次的审稿意见,好好修改文章。看得出,人家还是认为你的文章还是有亮点的,所以得好好改。相当 ...

我把最近的审稿意见发给您,您帮我看看:
Reviewer Comments:

Reviewer #1:

In my side of view this paper has some originality regarding to its application. Even, the author tries to mix different theories with each others, finally it give a bright-full results. However, I think there are lots of area that should be corrected and I think it was because of different amendments which were added to this paper after its first review.
1- The introduction is completely vast however it becomes to complicated while it just speak about history of the methods in details but it doesn't go through their application and definitions in general during introduction of the paper. I recommend author to re-structured the introduction and make it more readable for scholars.
2- It is a necessary to add a graphical chart at the end of introduction to avoid complication among history. the graphical chart should show the different areas that author mentioned about them and then it should illustrate the interactions and finally the contribution of this paper should be stared in the figure. It help to show the area of knowledge that author was explored in his study.
3- the contribution of this paper should be more highlighted at the end of introduction.  
4- some small English errors should be corrected such as page one, line 48, in the middle, it should be "in recent years,..."
5- the structure of paper does not obey the standard form of normal academic papers, maybe some definitions should come under methodology, and results and discussions should be more highlighted rather than lots of complicated Remarks.
6- Since the strength of this paper is more in its application, it needs to be more strong on this issue. The examples should be more applied and even some example could be comparative example which shows any differences between this method and previous ones.
7- In page 3, Line 30, It is not suitable for academic paper to use  "we"!
8- The procedure of this method should be illustrated by aid of graphical chart.
9- Conclusion should be more precise.
10- Using lots of references even at the end of the paper in remarks and results is not common and suitable at all. maybe they can be introduced as a significance of study in the introduction and at the end, the contributions should be mentioned alone.
11- Technically I like this mathematical solution in decision making. However, it will be so complicated for some scholars!




Reviewer #2:

The paper must be completely restructured.
Indeed, in its current form, the author presents:
- A set of definitions, remarks, examples, but without given textual explanations before giving the mathematical formulation.
- There are no apparent links between the different definitions, sections, etc. etc.
It should be important to:
- Explain with few words or in few lines, what is the contribution of the each definition.
- Propose the definitions with explanations, positioning, and links with what follow.
- Highlight the most important definitions to highlight the contribution of the author proportion.
On page 11, page where the author presents the proposal, we find a set of definitions, remarks and examples.
At page 11: It would be interesting that the author present the examples discussed by (Feng et al. 2010a) (Jiang et al. 2010a), and position its results regarding the obtained results by these authors. The goal is to have some elements of comparison.
Page 20: At the end of section 3 (proposed approach) there is no balance and the relationship between sections 3 and 4 (the author deal with 'Weighted interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets based decision making', again without link, explanations .).
We must wait the page 25 for having explanations: the author explains the benefits of its proposition, but as he does not position this proposition regarding other examples (examples discussed in (Feng et al. 2010a) (Jiang et al. 2010a)) ? The interest is not highlighted.
At the end of page 25, the explanations are presented without giving links with the different definitions, remarks, examples (presented at the beginning of the paper) ? the benefit of the proposed approach is less visible.
It is also the case for 'Weighted interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets based decision making' section. Moreover, the author does not position its proposition, without links .
A discussion on the types of problems that can be used with the proposed approach is important.
What about the following works: (Wang et al., 2009), (Zhang, 2011) regarding the proposed paper:
Zhoujing Wang, Kevin W. Li, Weize Wang, 2009, An approach to multiattribute decision making with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy assessments and incomplete weights. Information Sciences 179, 3026-3040.
Zhiming Zhang, 2011, A rough set approach to intuitionistic fuzzy soft set based decision making. Applied Mathematical Modelling.
8楼2012-04-11 09:51:52
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

seapass

至尊木虫 (职业作家)

超哥

优秀版主

引用回帖:
4楼: Originally posted by zhzimi_2007 at 2012-04-11 09:40:52:
有具体的审稿意见,两次好像都是相同的审稿人。

那也很正常,两次的审稿意见应该不一样了吧
独上高楼。。。
9楼2012-04-11 09:56:16
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

啸天犬

至尊木虫 (职业作家)

【答案】应助回帖

我看了你的审稿意见,人家的意见挺多的,你得照着人家的意见好好改。
天下兴亡,我的责任!
10楼2012-04-11 09:57:23
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 zhzimi_2007 的主题更新
最具人气热帖推荐 [查看全部] 作者 回/看 最后发表
[博后之家] 售SCI文章,我:8O.5.5.1O.54,科目全,可十急 +6 ASdOkHsho7FD 2026-08-28 7/350 2026-08-29 17:31 by 4FFAWE8HcgUD
[硕博家园] 售SCI一区T0P文章,我:8.O55.1.O.54,科目全,可十急 +4 ASdOkHsho7FD 2026-08-28 10/500 2026-08-29 16:49 by zICmwzsBXjbN
[教师之家] 导师吐槽:我怎么摊上了这么个极品研究生! +9 苏东坡二世 2026-08-23 9/450 2026-08-29 14:41 by hustersqt
[基金申请] 麻烦专家们看看评委们的意见(F口面上) +5 gdd2018 2026-08-28 10/500 2026-08-29 14:10 by Jacob678
[硕博家园] 售SCI一区文章,我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急 +5 ASdOkHsho7FD 2026-08-28 9/450 2026-08-29 14:03 by jCd0dEvKHShX
[找工作] 售SCI文章,我:8O5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急 +4 ASdOkHsho7FD 2026-08-28 6/300 2026-08-29 11:29 by jCd0dEvKHShX
[基金申请] 投票:  有多少人是今天查系统知道结果的? +16 爱看书的可乐 2026-08-26 18/900 2026-08-29 10:18 by winsaint
[教师之家] 售SCI-T0P文章,我:8O.5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急 +4 ASdOkHsho7FD 2026-08-28 7/350 2026-08-29 09:26 by G6APbkg8SA6w
[基金申请] 系统查不到 +11 董八千 2026-08-26 11/550 2026-08-28 18:06 by Leogzhya
[基金申请] 怎么看青基中了没有啊 +5 叶九微 2026-08-26 5/250 2026-08-27 10:35 by l_zh2008
[基金申请] 为什么 国际(地区)合作与交流项目 没有放榜? 10+3 majunge000 2026-08-26 11/550 2026-08-27 08:42 by 北京莱茵编辑
[基金申请] 2026年的国家社科基金项目通讯评审的新规则与新动向、新挑战 +7 process2012 2026-08-23 10/500 2026-08-26 19:23 by hmhminy
[基金申请] 为什么国自然不能直接公布 +4 bjdxyxy 2026-08-26 4/200 2026-08-26 13:12 by qingmu1201
[基金申请] 国合里面能看到了 +7 一怀馨秋 2026-08-26 7/350 2026-08-26 11:23 by zhaosm1982
[基金申请] 系统进不去 +4 yanglien 2026-08-26 5/250 2026-08-26 11:10 by wenfengw83
[基金申请] 国合现在查不到了吗? +10 chengyan1220 2026-08-24 20/1000 2026-08-26 08:57 by peasantsprig
[基金申请] 牛来!米来!面来! +8 beefly 2026-08-26 8/400 2026-08-26 08:37 by xuzhipiao
[基金申请] 某些机构,以效率低为荣,以效率低作为存在感 +9 yuleib84 2026-08-25 10/500 2026-08-25 17:14 by alexon
[基金申请] 如果此刻你正在为国基感到焦虑,不妨来听听这首《基金之外》 +8 scalable 2026-08-24 8/400 2026-08-25 12:52 by jnhyjjm
[基金申请] 没有任何消息-是不是就凉了 +9 图啦图啦 2026-08-24 10/500 2026-08-25 11:59 by 南海小哥
信息提示
请填处理意见