1. Home
  2. LEA
  3. All Papers
  4. Software complex for realization of mathematical models, methods and algorithms of estimation of time of execution of complex problems in multiprocessor computer systems
  5. Review of an article submitted to the conference

Review of an article submitted to the conference

Approval status: Accept without acknowledging of remarks
Date Published: 15.11.2018 - 13:27
Article’s title 
Software complex for realization of mathematical models, methods and algorithms of estimation of time of execution of complex problems in multiprocessor computer systems
The article's title reflects the content and purpose of the article? 
Yes
Was the aim of the work clearly defined and successfully accomplished? 
Yes
Does the article embrace contemporary issues in the area? 
Partially
Does the article contain new and not published results? 
I do not know
Was the article clearly written and easily understood? 
Understood with effort
Conclusions illustrate the research results, recommendations and giving suggestions for future research 
Partially
The references are full and grounded? 
Partially
How adequate was the writing and used terminology? 
Rather adequate
Remarks and suggestions to the authors of the article 

1. The English language should be improved as it comes to style and grammar.

2. It would be great to replace the paper title with this one "Software complex for realization of mathematical models, methods and algorithms for the execution time estimation of complex tasks in multiprocessor computer systems". It is more readable for my opinion.

3. In Abstract phrase "To solve the problem of forecasting" need to be replace with this one "For solving the execution time prediction task" Because the existing phrase has a completely different meaning.

4. Unfortunately, I can't find such results in the work: " Based on the analysis of mathematical models, methods and algorithms of direct stochastic modeling and belt-based stochastic modeling, as well as studies..." Perhaps this phrase should be deleted.

5. In the conclusions written about some characteristics of the test example. However, I can't find any signs of carrying it out at work.

I confirm that there is no conflict of interests regarding reviewed article. 
I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have insignificant reservations, as outlined above.