24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

索尼克大人

铁虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 228.1
散金: 60
帖子: 177
在线: 160小时
虫号: 160200
注册: 2006-01-08
专业: 恒星与星际物质

[交流] 第一篇论文投JMS被拒后，相同模型内容不同的文章（第一篇的延续工作）再投JMS有戏么已有2人参与

内容较长，请各位海涵！
第一篇论文投JMS被拒后，编辑给出的拒稿信：
I have received two reports on this manuscript from well-established reviewers. I have read their comments and find that they raise some very valid concerns. On one hand, it appears that not all the important parameters are accounted for in the cost estimation, and on the other hand, some flaws in the algorithms cast some doubts on the actual result. I admit that the prediction of performance and cost of Membrane systems is a difficult exercise, but in the present case, I think this submission cannot be published as a research paper for the reasons mentioned here above.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions on this file.
两个审稿人的部分意见
Reviewer #1: The article has two main items namely predicting/calculation performance of RO systems and cost of the produced water.
The cost calculations have no added value. Main reason is that the input is far from complete and far from correct e.g. pre-treatment cost are not included and the cost of membrane elements are two times higher than actual cost.

The performance predictions/calculations with the developed model suggest that the existing models used by e.g. Dow, Hydranautics and Toray don't exists or are inferior. This part could have given an added value if results obtained with the model were compared with the results of calculations done with the projection programs of the abovementioned companies.
Results of an existing plant (source: publication) are compared with model calculations and concluded that the model is O.K. However it is not clear what exactly the input data were in this reference.And the comparison is marginally done.

Recommend to rewriting the article and compare results obtained from the model and projection programs in detail for several situations. If the model fits it might be useful to publish and to making the program fully available for the desalination society. This has an added value since it is unknow how the projection programs do the calculations.

Reviewer #2:
This paper may be reviewed after incorporating following major revisions, some comments are listed as follow:

1. A structural diagram of membrane module should be given, which can describe the module model and symbols in Eqs. (1)-(4).
。。。中间的意见基本上都是一些不大的错误
15. As far as I know, the outer approximation algorithm can solve the MINLP problem, which just likes the following form:

Min cy + f(x)
s.t. , c is constant

where the binary variable y is linear, it is just as the statement in line 49 on page 18 “a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) master problem”.
However, when Eqs. (54)-(55) is put in Eqs. (6)-(7), the terms related to integer variable seem to be nonlinear. The MINLP problem presented in this manuscript is not like the form mentioned above, it does not always guarantee to get solution with the outer approximation algorithm. It seems that the MINLP model presented in this manuscript is not strict.
第一个审稿人的意见我进行了修改，关键的第二个审稿人关于算法的疑问，我找到了两篇发表的论文可以进行佐证，并且论文中采用的DICOPT算法的说明书中指出改算法经过改进后可以处理我的论文中的这种情况。
于是我把第一篇小论文修改后改投的其他杂志。
我的第二篇论文建模部分跟第一篇完全一样，但是第一篇文章是单目标，第二篇是多目标优化，用到的算法、研究内容和结果讨论都不一样。这样算不算一稿多投？第二篇文章再投JMS还有希望么？cover letter怎么写比较合适呢？
谢谢大家了！

[ Last edited by avast2009 on 2012-5-27 at 09:37 ]

回复此楼