Reasons for rejection & major revison

1.

The paper is sloppily and carelessly written. This encompasses the following. The exposition is confused, definitions are not precise, conditions of theorems are not adequately and carefully stated. Notation is often poor, with confusing notation, the same symbol being used in a number of different senses, or a ``new'' notation being used when there is an accepted and elegant version already extant. Misprints, either linguistic or mathematical may be numerous, perhaps to the point where the paper becomes incoherent.

2.

The bibliography is completely inadequate, even at the revision stage. Well-known and important works are missing or unread, resulting in unnecessary proofs of familiar results.

3.

The paper lacks depth. Although definitions and concepts might be new, there is insufficient investigation of their consequences. Or, the notions introduced are very obvious and the results almost trivial. Often, this seems to suggest that the author(s) lack both a deep knowledge of some areas and a broad working knowledge of pure mathematics.

4.

The submission is an "e-paper", making very little progress on previous contributions. Perhaps a definition has been slightly changed or a concept slightly generalized. In any case, the very same techniques used to prove previous results, often by the same author(s), seem to be replicated almost word for word.

5.

The submission is a barren fuzzification of obscure, uninteresting or very highly specialized crisp mathematics. This is usually done with no application in mind and usually no examples. If an example is given, it is very contrived and it is hard to see what it could used for. There is a sense that the results will not lead anywhere, nor add much that links with other areas.

6.

The contribution is in a traditional area in which major advances have recently been made, of which the authors seem completely unaware. An example of one such is fuzzy differential and integral equations. There have been many contributions involved with existence and uniqueness of solutions. Unfortunately, equations of this sort are based on the Hukuhara derivative and Aumann integral, and suffer the grave disadvantage that solutions spread out over the time evolution [4], thus becoming irreversible in possibilistic terms [1]. Consequently, fuzzy analogues of very well-behaved equations, like x'=-x, are unstable and do not reflect the physical behaviour of imprecise systems. Although several approaches have tried to overcome this defect, the recent paper of Hüllermeier [3] is currently the most general and successful way of interpreting vagueness by such equations, while maintaining intuitive and meaningful results. I have been lenient with authors who have made some advances in the classical area up until now, but will become increasingly less accommodating in future.

7.

The paper is ``Off Topic'' and has really no meaningful fuzzy content at all. There may be a fuzzy definition or two, but the principal thrust of the result is that it is not really fuzzy, nor applies to genuinely fuzzy situations. Or, there may be an attempt to fuzzify a concept and nothing really comes out of it.