24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (3800)
>导师招生 (460)
>文献求助 (419)
>休闲灌水 (305)
>虫友互识 (150)
>考博 (142)
>招聘信息布告栏 (103)
>论文道贺祈福 (97)
>硕博家园 (93)
>公派出国 (84)
>基金申请 (79)
>论文投稿 (79)
>博后之家 (78)
>教师之家 (61)
>考研 (49)
>找工作 (37)

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

jyajian

金虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 4881
帖子: 79
在线: 365.5小时
虫号: 489945

[交流] 第一次遇到棘手的审稿意见，难缠啊

第一次修改意见（第二个审稿人）
Some aggregation operators for aggregating XXXXXXX  are proposed and then applied to resolve multiple attribute group decision making. However, the main results of this paper are just the simple extensions of the known ones. Therefore, I don't think this paper has enough novelty to be published. There are also other problems:

1. Definitions 5, 6, 7 and 8 should be given explanations, why does the paper give such definitions to denote the score and accuracy functions of XXXXXXX  ?

（第三个审稿人）
Notation sometimes is not easy to follow. Please check whether it is possible to ease the presentation.- I suggest to improve the section related to the experimentation of the proposed method by adding a comparison with at least one competing approach, and enlarging the test to some other possibly synthetic scenario to allow the reader to better catch the effectiveness of the authors' proposal.

第二次修改意见（第二个审稿人）
The interval-valued intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy number is unclear in practical applications. The practical meaning must be explained with a concrete example (case). The numerical example is too simple, which can not be used to demonstrate the approach. More complex case illustration is necessary. （我不太清楚，为什么要用复杂的算例，我觉得我算例已经分析的很清楚，而且从理论上证明了）

（第三个审稿人）
The revised version of the paper have improved the contribution. I still believe that a comparison with at least one competing approach, and enlarging the test to some other possibly synthetic scenario to allow the reader to better catch the effectiveness of the authors' proposal may improve the paper.

第三次修改意见（第二个审稿人）
It is clear that the authors have not answered my two questions given in the comments.

（第三个审稿人）
The revised version of the paper has addressed my comment about the comparison with competing approaches. However, this comparison is made at theoretical level. I wonder whether this may be also added in the example illustrated by the authors. After this the paper can be accepted for publication.  (我在算例当中已经做了比较分析，不知道为什么审稿人只是说我做了理论分析)

回复此楼