Next Article in Journal
Performance of a Simple Energetic-Converting Reaction Model Using Linear Irreversible Thermodynamics
Previous Article in Journal
Dynamical Transitions in a One-Dimensional Katz–Lebowitz–Spohn Model
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Method for Risk Evaluation in Assembly Process based on the Discrete-Time SIRS Epidemic Model and Information Entropy

Entropy 2019, 21(11), 1029; https://doi.org/10.3390/e21111029
by Mengyao Wu 1, Wei Dai 1,*, Zhiyuan Lu 2, Yu Zhao 1 and Meiqing Wang 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Entropy 2019, 21(11), 1029; https://doi.org/10.3390/e21111029
Submission received: 6 September 2019 / Revised: 19 October 2019 / Accepted: 22 October 2019 / Published: 24 October 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Multidisciplinary Applications)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an interesting research topic by employing epidemic model in risk assessment of assembly processes. It is a novel idea and I think it will be promising.

The authors mentioned that ‘We have had a comparison from the aspects of infectious source, infectious path and susceptible individuals. We apply the SIRS epidemic model to simulate the critical entropy during the assembly process when defects emerge’. I guess it is in their previous research ref [40]. It will be good to see the comparison here in this paper as it is the foundation of the research. The ref is a conference paper, which is not easy to access.  

The authors proposed the method of ‘Optimal assembly path selection based on reliability and cost’, which is another perspective of the paper. There is little literature on this topic and it was not mentioned in the conclusions.

The conclusion is weak. It is not clear how effective the proposed risk evaluation method is.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The presented paper deals with a method to assess the risk in assembly process based on discrete-time SIRS model. The method si well developed in details. However the structure of the paper could benefit from a revision.  the section 2 describes the notations and assumptions which could be added in the beginning  of the paper. some others sections are too short and should combined with the others (section 4.3 should be added in 3.3 for example). the case study is well detailed and the numerical results are described good.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop