Multi-Objective Optimization of Workshop Scheduling with Multiprocess Route Considering Logistics Intensity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The name of the paper (low-carbon optimisation) and the abstract don't correspond with the body of the article. The carbon emission is calculated on energy consumption (it is just mentioned in the article as an equation), and I think it is not a good approach. It is one of the main objectives of the article, and it must be better characterised.
The literature review is weak and must be improved. The results of the literature review are not well described.
Situation and the variables used in the model are not clearly explained.
Currency used in the article is yuan, I recommend to use USD or Euro.
Please describe the power detection equipment in more details.
The conclusions are very weak.
I recommend to rewrite the manuscript and clearly set the name and the objectives according to the realised research. The research must be better described, clearly defined its goals and conditions.
Author Response
Dear, Editor and Reviewer:
We are so appreciated for your letter and for the reviewer's comments conceming our manuscript entitled”Low-Carbon and Low-cost Optimization of Workshop Scheduling with Multi-Process Route Considering Logistics Intensity”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
For detailed content, please refer to the attachment and the revised paper.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not affect the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/ Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions.
Yu Sun, Qingshan Gong, Mingmao Hu, Ning Yang
June 30, 2020
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper should be improved by considering some foundational studies on evolutionary computation and
optimization from unified approach. Following are example papers which should be referred/cited, and relevance of multi-objective must be established:
De Jong, Kenneth. "Evolutionary computation: a unified approach." Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion. 2019.
De Jong, Kenneth. "Evolutionary computation: a unified approach." Proceedings of the 2016 on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion. 2016.
Padhye, Nikhil, Piyush Bhardawaj, and Kalyanmoy Deb. "Improving differential evolution through a unified approach." Journal of Global Optimization 55.4 (2013): 771-799. Deb, Kalyanmoy, and Nikhil Padhye. "Enhancing performance of particle swarm optimization through an algorithmic link with genetic algorithms." Computational Optimization and Applications 57.3 (2014): 761-794.
Author Response
Dear, Editor and Reviewer:
We are so appreciated for your letter and for the reviewer's comments conceming our manuscript entitled”Low-Carbon and Low-cost Optimization of Workshop Scheduling with Multi-Process Route Considering Logistics Intensity”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
For detailed content, please refer to the attachment and the revised paper.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not affect the content and framework of the paper. And we have made some changes to some descriptions of the paper, which not only greatly improved the readability of the article, but also improved the accuracy of the article, here we did not list the changes but marked in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/ Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions.
Yu Sun, Qingshan Gong, Mingmao Hu, Ning Yang
June 30, 2020
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the upgrade of the manuscript, but I have two suggestions more.
- You are using sign $ as a dollar. It is not correct. In English documents, when you need to specify the type of dollar (Canadian, American, Australian, etc.), you have to write the country symbol ( US ) first, immediately followed by the dollar sign ($). So the correct abbreviation of used currency is US$, not $.
- The quality of figure 7 is low, please redraw it in better quality.
Author Response
Dear, Editor and Reviewer:
We are so appreciated for your letter and for the reviewer's comments conceming our manuscript entitled”Multi-objective Optimization of Workshop Scheduling with Multi-Process Route Considering Logistics Intensity”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
For detailed modification, please refer to the attachment and the revised paper.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not affect the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/ Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions.
Yu Sun, Qingshan Gong, Mingmao Hu, Ning Yang
July 7, 2020
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
