ddiruscio/logseq
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

[logseq-plugin-git:commit] 2026-01-12T19:02:37.174Z

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Davide Di Ruscio
2026-01-12 20:02:37 +01:00
parent e270e81881
commit 05b21f611e
1 changed files with 6 additions and 7 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
pages/EditoringChairing___SOSYM-25-00005370.md
+6 -7
View File
@@ -20,14 +20,13 @@ todoist:: https://app.todoist.com/app/task/software-and-systems-modeling-manuscr
- Reviewers identified fundamental issues in the algorithms and formalizations. Specifically, the claim that the algorithm ensures "optimal" allocation was proven incorrect via counter-examples provided in the reviews.
- The evaluation relies on synthetic workloads and a simulation environment (CloudSim Plus) without sufficient explanation of the underlying mechanics, a replication package, or a comparison against real-world industry traces.
- The manuscript contains several "broken" references (e.g., Figure ??), typos, and structural issues where sections end abruptly or are incomplete (e.g., Section 5.4).
- I believe the detailed feedback provided by the reviewers are helpful should you decide to refine the work for a more specialized cloud computing venue.
-
- ---
- While the reviewers recognized the potential of applying Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) to cloud resource management, the consensus reached was that the paper is not suitable for publication in SoSyM for the following critical reasons:
-
- **Research Integrity and References:** A significant concern was raised regarding the accuracy of your bibliographic references. A sample check revealed several citations that appear to be non-existent or point to unrelated works (e.g., references [21-25]). In the current publishing climate, such "hallucinated" citations are a serious concern and suggest a lack of rigor in the preparation of the manuscript.
-
- **Methodological Weaknesses:** The evaluation relies on synthetic workloads and a simulation environment (CloudSim Plus) without sufficient explanation of the underlying mechanics, a replication package, or a comparison against real-world industry traces.
- **Presentation:** The manuscript contains several "broken" references (e.g., Figure ??), typos, and structural issues where sections end abruptly or are incomplete (e.g., Section 5.4).
- ---
- A sample check revealed several citations that appear to be non-existent or point to unrelated works (e.g., references [21-25]). In the current publishing climate, such "hallucinated" citations are a serious concern and suggest a lack of rigor in the preparation of the manuscript.
-
- **Methodological Weaknesses:** The evaluation relies on synthetic workloads and a simulation environment (CloudSim Plus) without sufficient explanation of the underlying mechanics, a replication package, or a comparison against real-world industry traces.
- **Presentation:** The manuscript contains several "broken" references (e.g., Figure ??), typos, and structural issues where sections end abruptly or are incomplete (e.g., Section 5.4).
- Reviewer 1 / REJECT
- Confidential comment
collapsed:: true