Changes suggested by the reviewers. Changes suggested by the reviewers.

Result of Review

Title: The Integrated Life Cycle Assessment and Optimization Approach for Automotive De-manufacturing Systems

Decision of Paper Selection

( ) A. Accept submission, no revisions required.

(*) B. Accept submission, revisions required; please revise the paper according to comments. ( ) C. Decline submission; you may revise and resubmit for review.

( ) D. Decline submission.

What should you do next? (Only for accepted papers, A & B)

Revise the paper according to the comments (if applicable).

All authors must agree on the publication; please inform us of agreement by e-mail.

Pay a publication fee of 100.00USD for the

Please find payment information at: http://payment.org

Please notify the editorial assistant when payment has been made

Proposed Schedule for Publication (Only for accepted papers, A & B)

5, No. 1, June 2016, if you meet above requirements within 2 weeks.

e-Version First: the online version may be published soon after the final draft is completed.
You may also ask to publish the paper later, if you need more time for revision or payment.

Additional Information (Only for accepted papers, A & B)

You may download the e-journal in PDF free of charge at: http://jbls.macrothink.org

Other questions please contact the editorial assistant at: jbls@macrothink.org

Comments from Editor

Evaluation	Grade Please give a grade of 5, 4, 3, 2, 1(high to low)
Overall evaluation of the paper	3
Contribution to existing knowledge	4
Organization and readability	2
Soundness of methodology	3
Evidence supports conclusion	4
Adequacy of literature review	3
Comments and Suggestions Revise the paper according to Author Guidelines: http://author.macrothink.org Add DOI persistent links to those references that have DOIs, please see Paper Submission Guide.

Comments from Reviewer A

v Evaluation (Please evaluate the manuscript by grade 1-5)
5=Excellent 4=Good 3=Average 2=Below Average 1=Poor
Items	Grade
Contribution to existing knowledge	2
Organization and readability	4
Soundness of methodology	4
Evidence supports conclusion	1
Adequacy of literature review	4
v Strengths It is very interesting but evidences that support Authors’ proposal are too little.
v Weaknesses
v Suggestions to Author/s
v

Comments from Reviewer B

v Evaluation (Please evaluate the manuscript by grade 1-5)
5=Excellent 4=Good 3=Average 2=Below Average 1=Poor
Items	Grade
Contribution to existing knowledge	2
Organization and readability	2
Soundness of methodology	1
Evidence supports conclusion	1
Adequacy of literature review	3
v Strengths v Good overview of automotive de-manufacturing systems and legislative instruments for reassurance.
v Weaknesses v Poor overall structure v Unclear contribution of the authors v Unclear research objectives and lack of evidence for their achievement
v Suggestions to Author/s Suggestions to author/s are given as comments directly in the manuscript document in pdf format, since the provided manuscript does not contain row numbering and it is very difficult for the reviewer to describe each of his comments. In parallel to the pdf version, the reviewer provides also the docx format of the revision, but only for the use of the editor, in order to keep anonymity.

p(10)

Place your order now to enjoy great discounts on this or a similar topic.

People choose us because we provide:

Essays written from scratch, 100% original,

Delivery within deadlines,

Competitive prices and excellent quality,

24/7 customer support,

Priority on their privacy,

Unlimited free revisions upon request, and

Plagiarism free work,

Changes suggested by the reviewers

Tag: Changes suggested by the reviewers

Changes suggested by the reviewers

Result of Review

Comments from Editor

For a custom paper on the above or a related topic or instructions, place your order now!

What We Offer:

Our Company

Legal

How Our Service is Used:

Other