[logseq-plugin-git:commit] 2026-01-12T19:01:05.037Z

assets/SOSYM-25-00005370_Proof_hi_1768242985741_0.edn

@@ -1 +1 @@
-{:highlights [], :extra {:page 11}}
+{:highlights [], :extra {:page 40}}

pages/EditoringChairing___SOSYM-25-00005370.md

@@ -14,6 +14,20 @@ parent::
 todoist:: https://app.todoist.com/app/task/software-and-systems-modeling-manuscript-id-sosym-25-00005370-6fjGH2pWwHchxRFg
 
 	- ### [[Comments]]
+		- My comment
+			- All the reviewers recognized the benefits of applying Formal Cocept Analysis (FCA) to cloud resource management. However, there is the consensus to reject the paper for at the least the following criticalities:
+				- Reviewers noted that the contribution is more aligned with cloud computing or operations research journals. The modeling presented does not reach the level of rich architectural or behavioral modeling expected for SoSyM.
+				- 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).
+			-
+			- ---
+			- 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).
 		- Reviewer 1 / REJECT
 			- Confidential comment
 			  collapsed:: true

pages/KaraKeep-Highlights.md

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 icon:: ✏️
-generation_time:: [[2026-01-12]] T18:00:52Z
+generation_time:: [[2026-01-12]] T19:00:52Z
 
 - # **TODOs and IDEAs**
 	- {{query (and [[TODO]] [[KaraKeep-Highlights]] (or [[Ideas]] [[KaraKeep-Highlights]]))}}