SCI论文发表很容易【2】：论文修改稿

大家已完成稿件的投递工作，且在投稿过程中由于审稿周期较长，中途也进行了催促。那么，当我们的稿件出现返修情况时，如何处理呢？以下是具体的处理模板：

注释：如果杂志社有特殊要求和格式规范，必须遵循其统一的格式样式，反之则可以参考下面提供的标准模板。

2.1 国内期刊回复专家意见

（ 1**）《中国管理科学》专家回复**

论文**“**xx”

非常衷心地感谢审稿专家对论文提出的宝贵意见以及编辑部老师给予的帮助，这些意见和帮助对于提升论文的质量具有重要意义。基于专家的修改意见，作者对论文进行了认真地进行针对性修改，具体修改意见说明如下：

专家意见：文章针对多配送站的实际配送情形，结合电商平台的承诺机制，构建了延迟收货时间函数模型，针对物流配送成本和延迟收货时间的优化，提出了多目标车辆路径规划问题的求解模型，并采用基于分解的遗传算法构建了启发式求解框架。通过典型案例的仿真实验验证了该方法的有效性。文章在结构上具有清晰的逻辑性，在行文上较为简洁明了。疑问：文章的结论部分在正文是如何体现的？请详细说明。建议在论文中增加拟投期刊的参考文献，以增强学术严谨性。

修改说明：非常感谢专家提出的宝贵意见，作者重新梳理了全文，发现结论（1）存在不严谨的说法，故将结论（1）进行了相应的修改，修改为：（1）比较了基于最小化行驶里程和最小化燃料消耗量两种目标的燃料消耗量，验证了该模型在不同目标下的适用性，有助于企业更合理地规划配送路线，降低物流成本，提升经济效益。

结论（1）的具体说明在文中的2.2 配送车辆的燃料消耗量模型 小节（文章第3页—第6页 ）中有详细的说明。在2.2节中，首先由Xiao等[20]提出本文的燃料消耗量模型。考虑到配送车辆在行驶过程中，燃料消耗成本占物流配送成本的很大一部分，因此降低燃料消耗量有助于实现物流成本的降低。然而，传统的车辆路径规划问题通常以最小化行驶距离（或者最小化配送成本，物流成本与最小化行驶距离呈现比例关系，本质上仍然为最小化行驶距离）为决策目标，这种单一的优化目标忽视了配送过程中燃料消耗量的优化。因此，文章在2.2节中尝试通过最小化行驶距离和燃料消耗量的双重优化目标来改进配送车辆的效率，并通过实验验证了降低燃料消耗量的可行性和必要性。

另外，作者在梳理文章脉络的基础上中，增加了一篇文献综述，如下所示：

该研究团队引用文献[14]，针对该二维车辆路径问题，其中包含时间窗和多配送站，构建相应的数学模型，并提出一种混合算法模型，该模型由量子粒子群算法和引导式局部搜索算法组成。

颜瑞、朱晓宁、张群等，基于多车场带时间窗的车辆路径问题模型及算法研究[J].中国管理科学，2017，25(7)：67-77.

为了方便专家审阅，所有修改均以红色字体在文中标注。按照编辑部的要求，对英文摘要进行了扩展。同时，重新排版了参考文献、基金编号以及作者信息的格式。再次感谢评审专家的宝贵意见以及编辑部老师的辛勤工作！

谨祝工作顺利，身体安康！

论文作者

2019年6月27日

2.2 SCI论文回复审稿人模板一

    **Editorial Decision Letter and Responses to the Editor-in-Chief's And Reviwers' Comments**

We would like to express our gratitude to the Editor-in-Chief and anonymous reviewers for their sincere and insightful comments. We responded to the feedback provided by the Editor-in-Chief and anonymous reviewers to revise the manuscript.

Following the initial step, we present the editorial decision letter, authored by the Editor-in-Chief. Thereafter, we provide Point-to-Point responses to the Editor-in-Chief's and anonymous reviewers' comments.

Sincerely,

Serhat KILIÇARSLAN

Bandirma Onyedi Eylul University

Department of Software Engineering

10250 Balıkesir, Turkey

e-mail: skilicarslan@bandirma.edu.tr

2.3 SCI论文回复审稿人模板一

Responses to Reviewers

期刊名称

Manuscript # 论文编号

Title: “论文的题目”

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Once again, we sincerely thank you for your time and effort in handling our paper. We carefully revised our paper according to all the comments and suggestions from the DE and reviewers. To facilitate your review, we highlighted all changes in green in the revised paper. Please check.

Thank you very much! Wishing you happiness, health, and success.

Response to Reviewer #1

The authors have responded to all issues raised in the first round of review. I am pleased to share that the revisions have significantly improved the manuscript, and I believe it is now worthy of publication pending minor revisions. Overall, I advise submitting the revised manuscript for publication until the aforementioned concerns are clarified.

Response:****

Many thanks for your encouragement. Once more, we sincerely hope that our efforts can meet your expectations.

#1-1.

With the newly-added "5.2 管理意义" section, the authors propose that the government can enhance the IoT platform in the third paragraph, yet the ambiguity of the term "enhance" is concerning. Additionally, the stated objective of improving consumer welfare appears to have little connection to the functions outlined in the paper. It would be advantageous to explore how these recommendations align with the broader societal benefits.

Response:****

感谢您的建议。我们对第3段在“5.2 管理 implication”部分进行了改写。具体而言，我们的修改包括以下几点：

Finally, according to our findings, when customers exhibit a higher mean valuation for a smart device, the platform is capable of addressing these high-end clients by providing a superior service level. However, the IoT service cost plays a significant role in determining the service level a platform opts for. Therefore, the government can employ subsidies for IoT platforms or introduce policies that provide tax incentives to reduce the operational costs of IoT platforms. This would promote the provision of enhanced IoT services by IoT platforms, ultimately leading to increased consumer welfare. Meanwhile, to safeguard IoT network security and mitigate the risk of consumer data breaches, the government can establish regulatory frameworks that encourage IoT platforms and manufacturers to prioritize robust security measures. This can be achieved by mandating industry standards and certifications for IoT devices, thereby prompting firms to implement strong encryption, authentication protocols, and regular software updates to address vulnerabilities. Furthermore, the government can allocate resources toward research and development initiatives aimed at advancing technologies that enhance the security of IoT networks. As such, through these government incentives and measures, not only can the IoT sector achieve sustainable growth but it can also contribute to an increase in social welfare.

Response to Reviewer #2

In the preceding round, I served as Reviewer No. 2, and the paper underwent revisions. The authors have addressed the concerns I raised in their response letter. After carefully reading the revised manuscript and their response letter, I have noted several minor comments. Overall, I believe the revised manuscript has been enhanced. I hope these comments will further contribute to improving the paper.

Response:****

Once again, we thank you sincerely for your kind remarks and suggestions to enhance our paper. In the subsequent section, we will reproduce your comments and provide our responses in blue italics.

#2-1.

Firstly, there are still some typos and grammar errors in the revision. For instance, in the response letter, when summarizing the main changes concerning Modeling and Analysis, "we have clarified assumptions, clearly defined the undefined term 'I_s', and resolved the issue of inconsistency with innovation costs." The tense is inconsistent here. The authors may need to spend more effort to improve the writing.

Response:

感谢您在这个方面提出宝贵意见。我们对论文中出现的错别字深表歉意。在修订过程中，我们投入了更多精力来提升写作质量。我们郑重承诺，已尽最大努力妥善处理了所有提出的问题。

#2-2.

其次，在修订稿及其附送的回信中，存在较多的脚注。其中一些可以转换为参考文献。

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. In the revised manuscript, we replace these footnotes as references.

#2-3.

Upon further reflection, I observed that the authors did not adequately address Comment 9 raised by Reviewer 1, who identified two key concerns: first, the paper examines one-time interactions, which may not adequately represent the continuous and evolving nature of relationships between platforms and manufacturers; and second, the paper's sole emphasis on a monopoly platform. In light of these issues, it would be advantageous for the authors to present results that more accurately depict the dynamic interactions within the game framework and offer at least some insights into platform competition.

Response:

Thank you very much for your suggestions on this concern.

就第一个问题而言，我们完全赞同您的意见。

Furthermore, when analyzing a repeated game model with multiple interactions, it may involve both finite and infinite repetitions. Additionally, this process often requires accounting for the bargaining power between the platform and the manufacturer during the repeated game. Consequently, these considerations significantly increase the complexity of model analysis. Therefore, the author intends to pursue these extension works in future research.

In fact, regarding the second issue, our assumption about the monopolistic IoT platform originated from industry practices and standards, as will be elaborated upon in the following paragraphs.

As per a survey on IoT platforms (see: https://www.altexsoft.com/blog/iot-platforms/), diverse positioning profiles are exhibited by different platforms, targeting distinct market segments. Specifically, some IoT platforms cater to manufacturing-related IoT services, while others focus on delivering IoT technology services across industries such as energy, healthcare, smart homes, and smart cars. Consequently, due to their specialized market focuses within specific industry segments, these platforms attain a monopolistic position in their respective markets. Moreover, even though they provide similar baseline features, these platforms carve out unique competitive niches, rendering them more suitable for specific industries and use cases than others (see: https://www.automationworld.com/factory/iiot/article/22093552/aws-azure-google-iot-cloud-comparison). Additionally, considering the platform-specific network externalities and technological barriers, more established entrants, such as Amazon's IoT platform, typically secure a dominant market share compared to smaller and later-stage competitors. Therefore, these larger IoT platforms often command a dominant market share, affording them a competitive advantage.

Despite the challenges, our research model must account for the two scenarios mentioned above. Owing to the model's complexity and the difficulty in solving it, we cannot address this during the current revision. Instead, we will defer it to future research. Considering the current limitations, we will detail our future research directions in section 5.3.

5.3 Future research directions

In conclusion, we would like to emphasize three potential directions for future research to enhance our model framework. First, in this paper, we did not conduct a thorough investigation of the complex and multifaceted connections between network attack rates, platform service levels, and network security protection levels. Given the intricate nature of these relationships, we anticipate that future research will involve collecting more comprehensive network security data from IoT enterprises and analyzing the potential interdependencies among these factors through empirical methods. Second, while this paper has concentrated solely on a single platform, future studies could explore how different platforms interact in critical areas such as protocol development, standardization efforts, security collaboration initiatives, and other key dimensions, thereby shedding new light on the broader IoT ecosystem. Finally, an interesting avenue for future research would be to examine the impact of various collaboration mechanisms between platform operators and smart device manufacturers on network security investments.