24小时热门版块排行榜    

CyRhmU.jpeg
南方科技大学公共卫生及应急管理学院2025级博士研究生招生报考通知
查看: 2083  |  回复: 9

furymiss

金虫 (正式写手)

[求助] 没有什么不好的意见啊,怎么还给拒了呢??郁闷!

I am sorry to advise you that our reviewers have considered your paper but unfortunately feel it is unsuitable for publication in IJPR. For your information the reviewer(s) comments are attached to the end of this letter. Please note that fuller review reports may also be attached to this email.

In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s) I must decline the manuscript for publication in the International Journal of Production Research and you are now free to submit the paper elsewhere.

However, since the referees do find some merit in the paper, if after you have considered the reviews you wish to undertake the substantial additional work and rewriting that is needed, I am willing to receive a new submission that fully responds to the review comments.  Please refer to the previous submission and the original reference number if making a re-submission and include a detailed account of the revisions made.

Please note that resubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your resubmission will be subject to re-review.


Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1
1. Is the paper a research contribution, or is it a case study, a review, or a discussion?  Research contribution.  
2. Does the paper make a new and significant contribution to the literature in its own area?  The method for solving the problem is fairly good. But it can not to say that they make a new and significant contribution to the literature.

3. Does the paper appropriately compare the performance of proposed methodologies with those found in the published literature?  The authors propose four method to solve the problem. They compare their own method to each other. The conclusion is obvious.  

4. Does the paper provide evidence of real or potential application for advancing manufacturing practice?  Yes. The proposed method can be applied for the real situation.  
5. Is it a report of work done by the author(s) and does it state what the author(s) propose to do in the future?  The writing stylish of the paper is poor. The autors should work more to improve their work presentation. In my opinion, It is diffucat for the reader to read the paper completely and can underastand what the authors want to say.  
6. Is adequate credit given to other contributors in the field and are references sufficiently complete? (Please indicate any significant omissions.)  Yes.  
7. Are the character and contents of the paper clear from the title and abstract?  Yes.  
8. Is the paper clearly, concisely, accurately and logically written? Are there any errors? Could it benefit from condensing or expansion? (Please give details.)  The framework of the paper is logical; however the authors should abstract some technical part of the paper. By removing or abstract these parts of the paper reader can better understood what the authors done : Page 6 Line 21-44, Section 2.1, ... . Authors could define a new problem. Propose their solving method and finally in the computational part of the paper propose the method for the real application.  
9. Is the subject matter of relevance to manufacturing and appropriate to IJPR? Is it more suitable to another journal?  The subject of the paper is proper to publish in IJPR.  

Scientific aspect of the work is good. Unfortunately, the writing stylish of the paper is poor and it is not adequate to publish in the journal.

Comments to the Author
-        In page 13 Line 54 why W can be considered as continues variable.
-        Why in equation 10n can equal only to 1,2,3 and 4?
-        In figure 3 box” i>I” should be joint to  Box “Get an …”

请各位虫友给点意见或建议!!万分感谢!
回复此楼
重要的是持之以恒!
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

mvpyqz

至尊木虫 (知名作家)

【答案】应助回帖

★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
感谢参与,应助指数 +1
furymiss: 金币+10, ★★★★★最佳答案 2013-01-16 08:47:02
你的论文涉及的方面太广吧?也没有提炼出创造性的东西?做的太笼统?改改吧,做点实际性的让审稿人感觉眼前一亮的东西。

[ 发自手机版 http://muchong.com/3g ]
2楼2013-01-07 23:46:55
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

ycyang123

禁虫 (小有名气)


感谢参与,应助指数 +1
furymiss: 金币+1 2013-01-16 08:47:14
本帖内容被屏蔽

3楼2013-01-08 07:07:55
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

ll9999

专家顾问 (文坛精英)

优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
文章关键是要有创新性
4楼2013-01-08 08:27:43
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

amms001

金虫 (小有名气)

【答案】应助回帖

★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
感谢参与,应助指数 +1
furymiss: 金币+9 2013-01-16 08:47:46
论文好好提炼下吧,要有明确的中心主题,努力吧
5楼2013-01-08 08:58:08
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

mushichun

至尊木虫 (知名作家)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
好好改改,突出创新性,再投回去,应该有希望
http://www.polymer.cn/ss/shichunmu/index.html
6楼2013-01-08 09:06:12
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

nono2009

超级版主 (文学泰斗)

No gains, no pains.

优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀版主

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
对于你论文的创新性评价不高,所以被拒。
7楼2013-01-08 10:34:25
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

qqppaa1

木虫 (著名写手)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
“The writing stylish of the paper is poor. The autors should work more to improve their work presentation. In my opinion, It is diffucat for the reader to read the paper completely and can underastand what the authors want to say.  ” 这句也很致命...
8楼2013-01-08 11:19:22
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

liujunhero

新虫 (文学泰斗)

文献杰出贡献文献杰出贡献

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
创新性不足,而且语言不过关啊
9楼2013-01-08 12:57:50
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

晓洁天下

银虫 (小有名气)

楼主现在的文章是改后重投了还是?我也是投得这个杂志。主编给我的回复和你的一模一样。我现在不知道是改后重投还是在投稿到其他的杂志去呢?
10楼2013-04-16 22:09:47
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 furymiss 的主题更新
信息提示
请填处理意见