نمونه هایی از نتیجه داوری مقالات
نمونه هایی از نتیجه داوری مقالات
مقالات در نظر دارد؛ بدین معنی که هنگام ارسال مقاله برای داور، سوالاتی را دربارۀ
محتوای مقاله مطرح می سازد. در زیر نمونه هایی از داوری مقالات آورده می شود. سعی
کنید مقالات ارسالی ایرادات ذیل را نداشته
International Journal of Disaster Prevention and Management
Special Issue in Disaster Management and the Built Environment
In your assessment of this paper it may be useful to consider the
Does the title accurately reflect the content and purpose of
Is the Abstract sufficiently concise and informative of
the contents of the paper?
Is the purpose of the paper clearly
stated in the Introduction?
Do the Figures and Tables aid the
clarity of the paper?
Is the English and syntax of the paper
Does the paper make an original contribution to
Does the paper provide a comprehensive
review of previous work in the field? (in part)
conclusions clearly stated and adequately supported?
Is the overall
quality suitable for inclusion in a special issue of the International Journal
of Disaster Prevention and Management?
RECOMMENDATION (please tick one only)
Accepted subject to minor changes
Requires major changes
Comments to the Author (please use extra sheets if required)
Please add helpful comments for authors, be specific, identify by
Relatively well written.
An interesting topic, but a confusing paper (both in content
and use of English). Suffers from an apparent lack of direction and focus, for
- despite the title, little reference is made to Bam or to
specifically urban conditions.
- the proposal of a “holographic system” (p1) is not explicitly
explored in the paper, nor are the features of a “simulated environment”
- the lit. review consists largely of definitions of crisis
management rather than topic-specific texts.
- the description of the “virtual organization” (CDO) is similarly
generic (e.g. job descriptions), making the specific advantages of the DFD-based
system, used in an urban context, difficult to identify.
- the figures confirm that: “Detailed drawing [of DFD] in a
diagram makes it difficult to understand.” (p5)
Details of the results of the “unstructured interview” (p6),
and greater analysis of the literature concerning the Bam earthquake (as
outlined in the abstract) could, perhaps, support a more focused approach.
Title needs to be re-written: Dataflow model for managing
urban disasters: The experience of Bam Earth Quake
The Introduction section of the paper should give greater context
of the project. Explain in a paragraph the nature and significance of the Bam
Earthquake disaster. Indicate the magnitude of the disaster and the resultant
chaotic management of it. Lessons learned should be indicted. That will provide
the background context for the paper.
Introduction section should also clearly indicate the Aims and
Objectives of the paper and the research. Indicate the current state of the
Is the DFD model is for the development of a database management
system, expert system or similar computer based system. Or else is this is
purely for re-structuring management systems for disaster management.
A detailed clear literature review should follow this. This can be
to deal with holographic systems, disaster management and crisis management.
Explain and define what is a Holographic system.
The Disaster management section of the paper almost exclusively
discusses Crisis management. Do the authors content both to be equal? If so
build up theory for it. If not identify the subtle differences of the two terms
and its broader implications.
Literature review on Data Modelling is limited. Is this the only
application of data modelling in a disaster management context?
The Methodology section is not clear. Re-write it clearly
justifying the particular methodology adopted. Use citations to prove your
The DFD’s are clear but each should be clearly explained. It is
not satisfactory to provide brief explanation in the caption of the diagram.
These can either be tabulated and explained or explained in paragraphs.
There is no smooth transition between different sections of the
paper. Jump from Disaster management to DFD is quite sudden and abrupt. This
disjoints the paper and does not aid in the reading of it.
There are many typographical and English related mistakes right
throughout. These should be corrected.
Some abbreviations are not defined.
The Conclusions are very poorly written.
Contributions to knowledge, benefits of the system, advantages are
not clearly indicated. Explain what problems were overcome by this development.
Has the system being implemented? If so, in what way? What improvements have
been achieved? Has it been tested or validated?
What are the drawbacks and limitations of the is development?
Conclusions are far too general and vague. These need to be
precise and explain how the aims of the paper have been achieved while
emphasising on the originality of the work.
نتیجه داوری مقاله در مجلات مختلف به شکل زیر است. این داوری مربوط به مجله Futures
است که موضوعات مختلف در زمینه آینده را چاپ می کند. جالب اینکه طرف 48 ساعت نتیجه
داوری را برای ما ارسال کردند. البته بعد از چند ماه اطلاع دادند که مقاله را در
دست چاپ قرار داده اند.
I have now received comments from the two referees on your paper.
The first referee says:
A good paper but it needs some rethinking. What is needs is
1. Bringing in alternative readings of the clash of
civilizations - sardar, nandy, said, for example.
2. With each of his propositions, some real life case studies
are required with examples ...Right now it is overly theory based.
3. More citation in the field - the author starts this with
Masini but needs to do more. The futures studies present is all elementary stuff
and will be too familiar with Futures readers.
4. Finally, some understanding of differing views of conflict
and states would help - reading through Galtung's work on conflict and peace
would be of great benefit. With a broader reading - points 1-4 - the piece could
The second referee says:
Can the authors give some examples of futures work in Iran. As
it is now, his piece seems inappropriate for the readers of Futures who already
know what they are writing about. As it is, the paper is probably more useful to
readers in Iran, as an intro to futures elsewhere, than to futures folk
elsewhere. What would make the piece of value in Futures would be showing how
Iran is (or is not) manifesting these principles in its planning and policies. I
think the authors need to do this. It of course needs English editing. The
authors should get someone with good English to polish their paper.
In view of these comments, I think serious revisions are
needed in paper. In particular, the emphasis should be on futures studies in
Iran, with examples, rather than on presenting an elementary view of what
futures studies is. You also need to take other comments by the referees into
consideration in revising your paper. I will accept a revised version for
publication. If you consider all the suggestions of the referees than there
should be no need to have the paper refereed again.
Please let me have the revised paper as soon as it is ready.
Zia Sardar, Editor,
نمونه سوم از داوری
مجلات آی اس آی، مجله Safety Science است که البته مقاله را رد کرد. همانطور که
مشخص است ایرادهای مطرح ایرادهای مهمی هستند که کیفیت مقاله را پایین آورده بودند.
این ایرادات رفع شد و در حال حاضر همان مقاله در یک نشریه دیگر در امرالد در حال
I found this paper confusing. If the paper is intended to describe
a new approach to organizing the management of a crisis, then a discussion of
the other methods employed and the benefits provided by this method needs to be
clearly established. This is not done.
Little theoretical basis is provided for the method. It is not
enough to describe how to construct the diagrams.
the value and assumptions of such a discipline also needs to
outlined in detail.
Little mention is made of the Bam incident. Given that it is
mentioned in the title, I assumed that it would be used an example of where such
a method would be useful.
I was a little confused by the term “holographic”
"A system...in such cases." - unclear
Is the holographic and management system the same thing?
"immediately-after-disaster" - clumsy, re-word
“Thus, the system that will be discussed in this paper
introduces a suitable way to mobilize available resources and to reduce
consequences of disasters.” - Exactly what is being developed needs to be
explained in more detail.
“Natural disasters have occurred since the earliest times, and
despite the development of science and technology, they still cause many victims
each year” - vague and unnecessary
"One reason for this is the...." - this is not really proven.
Also, seems a bit unnecessary
"Massive time pressures" - not all incidents have the same time
Unnecessary reference to Chaos Theory here.
A number of critical conditions are described with no
"It is named..." - confusing, re-word.
Doesn't the need to describe the figures (especially the
arrows) undermine the value of this approach?
First of all, authors seem to have a weak knowledge of the
difference between emergency management and crisis situations.
An information system is useful for emergency management, as
long as it is part of the organization, which means that the many stakeholders
have already defined and experienced cooperation among them; they have been
trained to the daily use of the system in order to efficiently update, validate
and share data. even though, the emergency management staff has to define
procedures and plans (generally manual) to cope with electric power failures,
malfunctions of communications, lack of data and uncertainties.
A series of such reliable decision systems are on the market in
"advanced" countries at a national level. Availability of such systems at the
regional or municipal scale is much less common, as hardware, software and
overall data collection is too expensive for most communities. Investing in such
systems in developing countries is not yet on their agendas.
When the situation turns out of control and the crisis begins,
the emergency management activities will be overwhelmed and the evolution into a
chaotic situation depends on two factors: robustness and resilience. Will
procedures, plans and support systems resist to the many constraints and
uncertainties (robustness) and will the organization be able to invent
strategies and ad-hoc organizational patterns at all levels to reduce damage and
recover control (resilience)?
Here are for me the real questions.
It hides all the organizational aspects of emergency
management (relations between headquarters, local HQ and field troops, assessing
priorities, reporting of tasks, etc.).
It tries to make the reader think that some tasks may be done
automatically by a system ("the system is able to learn which information is
relevant for whom at which given moment"), when all practitioners know that this
is the role of the crisis team and moreover that the priority is to get data
(specially weak signals) and build sensemaking more than sending information to
it hides all responsibility aspects (if the wrong information
is transmitted and damage occurs from a wrong action, who will be responsible in
court: the system designer or the manager?).
it doesn't tackle a key question during such dramatic situations:
how to establish cooperation between the official services (civil security,
police & army, health system) and NGO's? How to organize the sharing of
tasks among the many NGO's?
How to make all those institutions use the same (or
compatible) data & systems