طراحی سایت

قالب وبلاگ

آی اس آی ژورنال

طراحی سایت


آی اس آی ژورنال
 
راهنمای چاپ مقاله در ژورنال های علمی بین المللی
نوشته شده در تاريخ چهارشنبه 8 مهر1388 توسط عبدالعظیم ملایی

International Journal of Disaster Prevention and Management

Special Issue in Disaster Management and the Built Environment

Referee’s Report

Paper ID

12

Paper Title

Referee’s Name

In your assessment of this paper it may be useful to consider the following points.

Does the title accurately reflect the content and purpose of the paper?

NO

Is the Abstract sufficiently concise and informative of the contents of the paper?

NO

Is the purpose of the paper clearly stated in the Introduction?

NO

Do the Figures and Tables aid the clarity of the paper?

NO

Is the English and syntax of the paper satisfactory?

NO

Does the paper make an original contribution to knowledge? (potentially)

YES

Does the paper provide a comprehensive review of previous work in the field? (in part)

YES

Are the conclusions clearly stated and adequately supported?

NO

Is the overall quality suitable for inclusion in a special issue of the International Journal of Disaster Prevention and Management?

NO

RECOMMENDATION (please tick one only)

Accepted

Accepted subject to minor changes

Requires condensing

Requires major changes

Rejected


COMMENTS

Comments to the Author (please use extra sheets if required)

Please add helpful comments for authors, be specific, identify by page numbers

Abstract

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 example:

- 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” (p2).

- 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

Text

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 research.

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 point.

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.


.: Weblog Themes By Pichak :.


تمامی حقوق این وبلاگ محفوظ است | طراحی : پیچک