24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (3331)
>虫友互识 (225)
>导师招生 (208)
>文献求助 (119)
>考研 (101)
>公派出国 (74)
>招聘信息布告栏 (55)
>硕博家园 (52)
>考博 (45)
>博后之家 (42)
>论文投稿 (42)
>休闲灌水 (30)
>基金申请 (21)
>教师之家 (20)
>无机非金属 (16)
>找工作 (16)

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

返回列表

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

furymiss

金虫 (正式写手)

应助: 20 (小学生)
金币: 1190.7
散金: 50
红花: 1
帖子: 358
在线: 37.4小时
虫号: 350741
注册: 2007-04-21
性别: GG
专业: 信息系统与管理

[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