ICSF 2021 Paper #13 Reviews and Comments =========================================================================== Paper #13 Extrapolation of indicators of monitoring of activity of industrial enterprises for an estimation of steady competitiveness Review #13A =========================================================================== Does the paper contain enough new material to warrant publication? ------------------------------------------------------------------ C. No Is the paper scientifically sound and not misleading? ----------------------------------------------------- B. Maybe Does the paper include a sufficiently general introduction? ----------------------------------------------------------- B. Maybe Is the paper clearly written, concise and understandable? --------------------------------------------------------- C. No Are the subject matter and style of presentation appropriate for Web of Conferences? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ C. No Is the length appropriate? -------------------------- B. Maybe Should the written English of the manuscript be edited? ------------------------------------------------------- A. Yes Is the impact of this paper likely to be high? ---------------------------------------------- C. No Please evaluate the quality of the research: -------------------------------------------- E. Poor Referees recommendation (check one, please give detailed reasons below) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- D. Rejected because the scientific content does not correspond to the WOC standards Detailed scientific report to be communicated to the author(s) -------------------------------------------------------------- The research topic is very indirectly related to the conference topic, but the authors did not analyze this connection. The essence of the already known (namely, [29, 30] - according to the text) methods and formulas for calculating indicators are presented in detail. For the study, not relevant data were used (until 2018). Forecasts for 2019-2022 have been made. Some of the forecasts can already be compared with real data. The analysis of the results adequacy and applicability for managing "steady competitiveness" of the enterprise is insufficient. By formatting of article: • the formatting of tables, figure captions, formulas, references does not meet the requirements; • the list of references contains duplicate sources ([28] = [32] = [33]); • there are many repetitive authors in the bibliography. There are many repetitive authors in the bibliography. Need to find out if the self-citation limit has been exceeded. Review #13B =========================================================================== Does the paper contain enough new material to warrant publication? ------------------------------------------------------------------ B. Maybe Is the paper scientifically sound and not misleading? ----------------------------------------------------- B. Maybe Does the paper include a sufficiently general introduction? ----------------------------------------------------------- B. Maybe Is the paper clearly written, concise and understandable? --------------------------------------------------------- A. Yes Are the subject matter and style of presentation appropriate for Web of Conferences? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ C. No Is the length appropriate? -------------------------- A. Yes Should the written English of the manuscript be edited? ------------------------------------------------------- A. Yes Is the impact of this paper likely to be high? ---------------------------------------------- B. Maybe Please evaluate the quality of the research: -------------------------------------------- D. Marginal Referees recommendation (check one, please give detailed reasons below) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- C. Acceptable after the authors have made the revisions mentioned in the report Detailed scientific report to be communicated to the author(s) -------------------------------------------------------------- The article does not fit the profile of the conference. The research is not relevant. The design of the article does not meet the requirements of the publisher. Review #13C =========================================================================== Does the paper contain enough new material to warrant publication? ------------------------------------------------------------------ B. Maybe Is the paper scientifically sound and not misleading? ----------------------------------------------------- B. Maybe Does the paper include a sufficiently general introduction? ----------------------------------------------------------- A. Yes Is the paper clearly written, concise and understandable? --------------------------------------------------------- A. Yes Are the subject matter and style of presentation appropriate for Web of Conferences? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. Yes Is the length appropriate? -------------------------- C. No Should the written English of the manuscript be edited? ------------------------------------------------------- B. Maybe Is the impact of this paper likely to be high? ---------------------------------------------- B. Maybe Please evaluate the quality of the research: -------------------------------------------- C. Average Referees recommendation (check one, please give detailed reasons below) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- C. Acceptable after the authors have made the revisions mentioned in the report Detailed scientific report to be communicated to the author(s) -------------------------------------------------------------- Overall, the authors did an excellent job. The title reflects its content. In fact, this manuscript has potential but it would require some revisions to be publishable. Therefore, I request that the authors make the recommended revisions below and resubmit the manuscript. # 1 - Add Discussion; #2- The conclusion should be expanded; indicate practical value and perspective article; #3- Presumably self citation more than 10%, if this is the case, must be decrease. Response by Тетяна Берідзе --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear experts, thank you for your careful comments. All comments are taken into account. It will be reflected in detail in the report. We look forward to creative cooperation. Best regards, authors.