Research on Multi-Equipment Collaborative Scheduling Algorithm under Composite Constraints

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

In this paper, the authors studied multi-device cooperative scheduling algorithm under composite constraint. The authors showed that this algorithm is useful and interesting.

[1] Abstract is complete.

Response: The authors appreciate the helpful comment by the reviewer.

[2] Introduction is well organized but I think it will be better if the authors show us a history of this kind of algorithm and the similar algorithms.

Response: We really appreciate the reviewer’s helpful advice, we have revised the Introduction based on this suggestion

[3] Main results are true and diagrams and tables have good format.

Response: The authors appreciate the helpful comment by the reviewer.

[4] Please, update the reference section and remove un-cited references.

Response: We really appreciate the reviewer’s helpful advice, we have updated the reference section and removed un-

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Despite of the high practical relevance of the subject and a seemingly adequate research methodology, the paper is hard to follow, understand and appreciate because of the faults in grammar and style. It can be considered for publishing only if it is rewritten in short and complete sentences.

The introduction is the most comprehensible part and sets out a good background for understanding the problem. It lacks references to similar researches and a placing of the proposed research in this context.

Section 2 describing the problem the research is trying to solve is the hardest to understand. A total rewrite is absolutely necessary, eventually using more mathematical descriptions, like in subsection 2.3.

Section 3, that describes the implementation, needs better explanations of the block schemes. The use of the word ”suitable” in the logic schemes is imprecise.

Section 4 needs a better presentation of the results. Some graphics have partially Chinese labelling. I suggest to centre all on the practical example from the bottom of page 9.

Also, the conclusion should be more specific, showing the original contribution of the work and the comparison with related researches.    

Author Response

Despite of the high practical relevance of the subject and a seemingly adequate research methodology, the paper is hard to follow, understand and appreciate because of the faults in grammar and style. It can be considered for publishing only if it is rewritten in short and complete sentences.

Response: The authors appreciate the helpful comment by the reviewer.

 

The introduction is the most comprehensible part and sets out a good background for understanding the problem. It lacks references to similar researches and a placing of the proposed research in this context.

Response: We really appreciate the reviewer’s helpful advice, we have revised the Introduction based on this suggestion

 

Section 2 describing the problem the research is trying to solve is the hardest to understand. A total rewrite is absolutely necessary, eventually using more mathematical descriptions, like in subsection 2.3.

Response: We really appreciate the reviewer’s helpful advice, we have revised the Introduction based on this suggestion

 

Section 3, that describes the implementation, needs better explanations of the block schemes. The use of the word ”suitable” in the logic schemes is imprecise.

Response: We really appreciate the reviewer’s helpful advice, we have revised the Introduction based on this suggestion

 

Section 4 needs a better presentation of the results. Some graphics have partially Chinese labelling. I suggest to centre all on the practical example from the bottom of page 9.

Response: We really appreciate the reviewer’s helpful advice, we have revised the Introduction based on this suggestion

 

Also, the conclusion should be more specific, showing the original contribution of the work and the comparison with related researches.    

Response: We really appreciate the reviewer’s helpful advice, we have revised the conclusion based on this suggestion

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The quality of the article has improved mainly through the revision of the language and style. Now the approach of the authors can be understood although with some effort. The comprehensibility of the article can be further improved by shortening and reformulating. the long sentences.

The use of both ”cooperative” and ”collaborative” with the same meaning should be avoided. The authors should  select the  more appropriate term, shortly  explain their choice and replace all appearance of the other term.

The combination of the two type of algorithms should be better explained both in the figures and in text.

Concerning the results, the necessary changes were operated so that they are better presented and sustain the claims. The most important part missing is  the qualitative comparison with similar approaches The only comparison is with  the ”traditional” scheduling  that is not explicitly described in the paper.  A relevant contribution will be to  provide results from the use of similar algorithms (like those presented in the introduction) on the same practical case.

Author Response

The quality of the article has improved mainly through the revision of the language and style. Now the approach of the authors can be understood although with some effort.

The comprehensibility of the article can be further improved by shortening and reformulating. the long sentences.

Response: We really appreciate the reviewer’s helpful advice; we have revised the paper based on this suggestion

 

The use of both ”cooperative” and ”collaborative” with the same meaning should be avoided. The authors should  select the  more appropriate term, shortly  explain their choice and replace all appearance of the other term.

Response: We really appreciate the reviewer’s helpful advice; we have revised the paper based on this suggestion

 

The combination of the two type of algorithms should be better explained both in the figures and in text.

Response: We really appreciate the reviewer’s helpful advice; we have revised the paper based on this suggestion

 

Concerning the results, the necessary changes were operated so that they are better presented and sustain the claims. The most important part missing is  the qualitative comparison with similar approaches The only comparison is with  the ”traditional” scheduling  that is not explicitly described in the paper.  A relevant contribution will be to  provide results from the use of similar algorithms (like those presented in the introduction) on the same practical case.

Response: We really appreciate the reviewer’s helpful advice, we have revised the paper based on this suggestion

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx