AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Review Article
*Corresponding Author: RRK Sharma, IIT Kanpur, India.
Citation: Pushkar Awasthi, RRK Sharma, Vinay Singh, (2023), Single Stage Plant-Warehouse Location Problem (SSPWLP): A State of Art Formulation, J, Biotechnology and Bioprocessing, 4(1); DOI: 10.31579/2766-2314/094
Copyright: © 2023, RRK Sharma. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Received: 10 February 2023 | Accepted: 20 February 2023 | Published: 28 February 2023
Keywords: single stage plant warehouse location problem; location-distribution problem; locating plant and warehouses simultaneously; simple plant location problem and capacitated plant location problem
Kaufman et. al. (1977) first considered this problem (SSPWLP). Goods flow from plants to warehouses to markets. Here we need to locate plants and warehouses of appropriate capacities so that sum total of location cost of plants and warehouses and distribution cost of goods from plant to warehouses to markets is minimized. They considered normalized decision variables (see Sharma and Muralidhar (2009)). However, they used the formulation style of Geoffrion and Graves (1974). We use normalized variables but use the variable style of Sharma (1991) and Sharma and Berry (2007) that reduces the number of variables. We give several strong linking constraints by drawing from the works of Sharma and NAMDEO (2005) and Sharma and Berry (2007). Below we give the formulation in brief. Details can be seen in the body of the paper. Variables names are self-explanatory and makes understanding the model easier.
Min sum(i,j), cpw(i,j)*xpw(i,j) + sum(j,k), cwm(j,k)*xwm(j,k)
Sum(i), yp(i)*fp(i) + sum(j), yw(j)*fw(j) (0)
Sum(i,j), xpw(i,j) = 1 (0a)
Sum(j,k), xwm(j,k) = 1 (0b)
Sum(j), xwm(j,k) >= d(k) for all k (0c)
Sum(j), xpw(i,j) <= capp(i) for all i (1)
Sum(j), xpw(i,j) <= capp(i)*yp(i) for all i (2)
Sum(i), xpw(i,j) <= capw(j) for all j (3)
Sum(i), xpw(i,j) <= capw(j)*yw(j) for all j (4)
xpw(i,j) <= yp(i)*capw(j) for all i, j (5)
xpw(i,j) <= yw(j)*capp(i) for all i,j (6)
xwm(j,k) <= d(k)*yw(j) for all j,k (7)
Sum(j), xpw(i,j) <= yp(i) for all i (8)
Sum(i), xpw(i,j) <= yw(j) for all j (9)
Sum(i), xpw(i,j) = sum(k), xwm(j,k) for all j (10)
Sum(i), capp(i)*yp(i) >= 1 (11)
Sum(j), capw(j)*yw(j) >= 1 (12)
xpw(i,j) >= 0 for all i,j; xwm(j,k) >= 0 for all j,k (13)
yp(i) = (0,1) for all i and yw(j) = (0,1) for all j (14)
This (the above formulation of SSPWLP) is the best formulation of SSPWLP that is amenable to solution by LP relaxation and attendant branch and bound and/or branch and cut solution procedure. In literature the distribution phase between plant and warehouse (where plant and warehouse are to be located) is solved by Sharma and Agarwal (2014) as MID_CPLP were Lagrangian Relaxation (LR) was deployed to get RHS_CPLP and LHS_CPLP (different classes of capacitated plant location problems) that were attempted by well-known relaxations (LR and Linear Programming) already available in literature (see Priyanka Verma and Sharma (2011)). Computational investigation is underway to determine efficacy of different new linking constraints given in this paper.
1.Introduction
Location-distribution problems have lot of varieties: SPLP (simple plant location problem), CPLP (capacitated plant location problem), single stage capacitated warehouse location problem (SSCWLP), and two stage warehouse location problems (see Sharma and Agarwal (2014) for latest references TSCWLP). In most of these problems plants and warehouses were not located simultaneously. Closest to problem considered in this paper is the problem of 2-stage warehouse location problem where warehouses are located in successive stages (but plant was located already, see Sharma and Namdeo (2005) and Sharma and Pritee Agarwal et. al. (2012, 2013, 2014, 2016)). For latest in plant-warehouse location theory refers to Sharma (2019, 2019, 2020, 2020, 2021 and 2022). Here we describe SPLP, CPLP, SSCWLP and TSCWLP in brief.
Problem SPLP is to locate plants of unlimited capacities so that sum total of fixed cost of plants plus distribution cost of plants to markets (so that their demand is met) is minimized. Here plants supply goods directly to markets. Problem CPLP is similar to SPLP but plants have finite capacities. Ordinary decision variables are X(i,k) which denoted the absolute quantity transported from plants to markets. If demand at a market k is D(k) then we have x(i,k) = X(i,k)/sum(k), D(k) and x(i,k) is referred to as normalized distribution variable and it is between 0 and 1. It has several advantages, see Sharma and Muralidhar (2009) for details. In literature SPLP and CPLP were for single commodity and single period only.
In SSCWLP, plants are already located, we need to locate warehouses in between plants and markets. Here goods flow from plants to warehouses to markets. Here if we consider single commodity then ‘normalized’ distribution variables are useful, but for multi commodity case ‘normalized’ distribution variables are not useful. Geoffrion and Graves used the distribution variable Y(i,j,k) to denote absolute
quantity of goods transported from plant ‘i’ to warehouse ‘j’ to market ‘k’. this style did not require flow balance constraints (see Geoffrion and Graves (1974). However Sharma (1991) used transportation variables as XPW(i,j) (quantity transported from plant ‘i’ to warehouse ‘j’) and XWM(j,k) (quantity transported from warehouse ‘j’ to market ‘k’. it is easy to see that Sharma (1991) formulation has less decision variables compared to number of decision variables in Geoffrion and Graves (1974) but require additional flow balance constraints at each of the warehouses. Sharma and Berry (2007) who gave several ‘strong’ constraints (both supply and demand side) and showed that Sharma (1991) type formulation was significantly superior to formulation style of Geoffrion and Graves (1974). Sharma and Berry (2007) considered only a single product and single period problem; whereas Sharma (1991) and Geoffrion and Grave (1974) developed models that were capable of considering multi-products and multi- period cases. Geoffrion and Graves (1974) assumed that whatever came in at a warehouse was moved out and there was no provision of keeping inventory at warehouses in their model. Sharma (1991) considered a model where inventory was allowed to kept at warehouses (but not at markets) and shortages were not allowed. Sharma (2019, 2019, 2020, 2020, 2021 and 2022) have developed models that allow inventory at markets and warehouses and allow shortages at markets.
Sharma and Agarwal (2014) and Sharma and Verma (2011) relaxed flow balance constraints in SSCWLP at warehouses to initiate Lagrangian Relaxation procedure and solved RHS and LHS CPLPs that resulted.
In this paper we apply all the advances listed above to the Single Stage Plant Warehouse Location Problem (SSPWLP) and give its most modern formulation below.
It has been well established in literature (see Sharma and Berry (2007) that formulation style of Geoffrion and Graves (1974) is not efficient; and hence that is not given in this paper. We use the style of Sharma (1991) that was demonstrated to be efficient by Sharma and Berry (2007). Since it is the case of single commodity, we use the normalized decision variables (see Sharma and Muralidhar (2009) and Sharma and Berry (2007) and Kauffman et. al (1977).
Index:
‘i’ for plant, ‘j’ for warehouse and ‘k’ for market.
Constants of the Problem
capp(i) is capacity of plant ‘i’ as a fraction of total market demand; capw(j) is capacity of warehouse ‘j’ as a fraction of total market demand; d(k) demand at market ‘k’ as a fraction of total market demand (d(k) = D(k)/sum(k), D(k)); cpw(i,j) is the cost of transporting sum of all market demand from plant ‘i’ to warehouse ‘j’ and cwm(j,k) is the cost of transporting sum of all market demand from warehouse ‘j’ to market ‘m’.
xpw(i,j) is the quantity transported from plant ‘i’ to warehouse ‘j’ as a fraction of total market demand (xpw(i,j) = XPW(i,j)/sum(k), D(k)); xwm(j,k) is the quantity transported from warehouse ‘j’ to market ‘k’ as a fraction of total market demand (xwm(j,m) = XWM(j,m)/sum(k), D(k)); yp(i) is location variable for plant ‘i’, it is equal to 1 if plant is located at ‘i’ and 0 otherwise; and yw(j) is location variable for warehouse ‘j’, it is equal to 1 if warehouse is located at ‘j’ and 0 otherwise.
Min sum(i,j), cpw(i,j)*xpw(i,j) + sum(j,k), cwm(j,k)*xwm(j,k)
Sum(i), yp(i)*fp(i) + sum(j), yw(j)*fw(j) (0)
Sum(i,j), xpw(i,j) = 1 (0a)
Sum(j,k), xwm(j,k) = 1 (0b)
Sum(j), xwm(j,k) >= d(k) for all k (0c)
Sum(j), xpw(i,j) <= capp(i) for all i (1)
Sum(j), xpw(i,j) <= capp(i)*yp(i) for all i (2)
Sum(i), xpw(i,j) <= capw(j) for all j (3)
Sum(i), xpw(i,j) <= capw(j)*yw(j) for all j (4)
xpw(i,j) <= yp(i)*capw(j) for all i, j (5)
xpw(i,j) <= yw(j)*capp(i) for all i,j (6)
xwm(j,k) <= d(k)*yw(j) for all j,k (7)
Sum(j), xpw(i,j) <= yp(i) for all i (8)
Sum(i), xpw(i,j) <= yw(j) for all j (9)
Sum(i), xpw(i,j) = sum(k), xwm(j,k) for all j (10)
Sum(i), capp(i)*yp(i) >= 1 (11)
Sum(j), capw(j)*yw(j) >= 1 (12)
xpw(i,j) >= 0 for all i,j; xwm(j,k) >= 0 for all j,k (13)
yp(i) = (0,1) for all i and yw(j) = (0,1) for all j (14)
Equation (0) is sum of cost of location and distribution. Equations (0a), (0b) and (0c) ensure that demand is met at all markets. Eq. (1) ensures flow out of a plant to be within its capacity, Eq. (2) is a strong linking constraint, Eq. (3) ensures that inflow at a warehouse is within its capacity, and Eq. (4) is again a strong linking constraint. Equations (5) and (6) are new linking constraints to SSPWLP but are borrowed from Sharma and Namdeo (2005). Again, equations (7) are strong linking constraints borrowed from literature (Sharma and Berry (2007)). Eqs. (8) and (9) are weak linking constraints, (10) is flow balance constraint at each of the warehouses. Equations (11) and (12) ensure that we have an additional constraint to ensure a feasible solution to problem SSPWLP. These are missed in Kaufman et. al. (1977) and Sharma and Berry (2007); but Priyank Dubey (2020) established its efficacy. Equations (13) force non-negativity restriction on transportation variables and equations (14) ensure that location variables are (0,1).
Few comments are in order here. Sharma and Namdeo (2005) did not give constraints (0a), (0b), (11) and (12) in their formulation for 2-stage warehouse location problem; and Sharma and Berry (2007) forgot to include constraint (12) in their formulation of SSCWLP (single stage capacitated warehouse location problem) and Sharma, Jha and Priyank (2023) (a paper submitted to IEOM 2023 Houston conference) showed that efficacy of (12) in problem SSCWLP was highly significant. We put all these classes of constraints for SSPWLP to give its state-of-art formulation. It is also important to note here that despite stronger LP relaxation bound given by strong constraints ((2) and (7)) compared to LP relaxation bounds given by weak constraints (8) and (9), SSUWLP (single stage un-capacitated warehouse location problem) ran faster with weak constraints than the strong constraints (see Sharma and Verma (2012)). This encouraged Sharma and Verma (2012) to develop a hybrid formulation (here weak constraints were augmented by few promising strong constraints) whose performance was better than that of weak and strong formulation of SSCWLP. Thus, determination of efficacy of each of the linking constraints is important an experimental investigation is underway to determine this.
We give the usefulness of the formulation given above in the form of a table.
| SN | Advantage |
| 1 | New linking constraints (5) and (6) are given that is expected to boost the performance of optimizing algorithms. |
| 2 | New feasibility constraints (11) and (12) are expected to boost the performance of optimizing algorithms. |
| 3 | We ensure that all strong linking constraints given in Sharma and Berry (2007)(4 and 7) are included in this formulation. |
| 4 | New linking constraint (2) is added to formulation that is expected to boost theperformance of optimizing algorithms. |
Table 1: Advantages of New Formulation of SSPWLP given in this paper.
We define following models:
P1: without (5), (6), (11) and (12).
P2: without (11) and (12)
And model P3 with all constraints (0a), (0b), (0c) and (1) to (14).
An experimental investigation carried out to establish the efficacy of new constraints added to SSPWLP problem in this paper is given below. We solved problems for 50 plants and 50 warehouses. In problem set 1 we solved 25 problems with overcapacity between 125–150%. In problem set 2 we solved 25 problems with overcapacity of about 200%. These problems were solved on Intel(R) Core (TM) i5-7200U CPU @ 2.50GHz processor.
PROBLEM SET 1 (overcapacity of plant and warehouse between 125%-150%)
Salient Result for P1-P2:
| Criterion | µp1 | µp2 | | t –value| |
| Iterations | 9197.12 | 6161.64 | 1.553 |
| No. of Nodes | 926.76 | 625.16 | 1.528 |
| Root Relaxation Solution Time | 0.0328 | 0.0536 | 7.076 |
| Objective Fn. | 40220.2836 | 40512.5464 | 0.337 |
| Executiontime | 0.0236 | 0.02872 | 1.059 |
Salient Result for P2-P3:
| Criterion | µp2 | µp3 | | t –value | |
| Iterations | 6161.64 | 1792.80 | 4.704 |
| No. of Nodes | 625.16 | 74.68 | 5.112 |
| Root Relaxation Solution Time | 0.0536 | 0.0388 | 5.220 |
| Objective Fn. | 40512.5464 | 40540.9728 | 0.039 |
| Executiontime | 0.02872 | 0.0312 | 0.18 |
Salient Result for P1-P3:
| Criterion | µp1 | µp3 | | t –value| |
| Iterations | 9197.12 | 1792.80 | 3.695 |
| No. of Nodes | 926.76 | 74.68 | 4.287 |
| Root Relaxation Solution Time | 0.0328 | 0.0388 | 1.964 |
| Objective Fn. | 40220.2836 | 40540.9728 | 0.384 |
| Executiontime | 0.0236 | 0.0312 | 2.69* |
| |||
From above table we can say that between P1 and P2 there is no significant difference in terms of number of iterations and no of nodes processed; so, we can say that P1 is as good as P2.
Salient Result for P2-P3:
| Criterion | µp2 | µp3 | | t –value| |
| Iterations | 7456.60 | 1274.36 | 3.352 |
| No. of Nodes | 568.80 | 11.72 | 4.034 |
| Root Relaxation Solution Time | 0.0556 | 0.0552 | 0.110 |
| Objective Fn. | 22921.6592 | 22422.4352 | 0.848 |
| Executiontime | 0.02816 | 0.03952 | 1.551* |
| |||
Salient Result for P1-P3:
| Criterion | µp1 | µp3 | | t –value| |
| Iterations | 7464.68 | 1274.36 | 4.577 |
| No. of Nodes | 631.76 | 11.72 | 5.662 |
| Root Relaxation Solution Time | 0.0292 | 0.0552 | 8.362 |
| Objective Fn. | 23365.4344 | 22422.4352 | 1.491 |
| Executiontime | 0.02876 | 0.03952 | 1.551* |
| |||
From above table we can say that there is no significant difference in objective function values of models P1, P2 and P3 (except that P3 gives sig better objective functions than P1); but P1 takes significantly less execution time compared to P3. Therefore, we can solve problem first by using model P1 and then use this advanced start to improve further by using model P3 (GAMS offers such a capability).
As more constraints are added (5, 6, 11 and 12) progressively in model P2 and P3 we get better objective function values and at the expense of higher execution time.
PROBLEM SET 1 (overcapacity of plant and warehouse between 125%-150%)
Salient Result for P1-P2:
| Criterion | µp1 | µp2 | | t –value| |
| Iterations | 9197.12 | 6161.64 | 1.553 |
| No. of Nodes | 926.76 | 625.16 | 1.528 |
| Root Relaxation Solution Time | 0.0328 | 0.0536 | 7.076 |
| Objective Fn. | 40220.2836 | 40512.5464 | 0.337 |
| Executiontime | 0.0236 | 0.02872 | 1.059 |
Salient Result for P2-P3:
| Criterion | µp2 | µp3 | | t –value | |
| Iterations | 6161.64 | 1792.80 | 4.704 |
| No. of Nodes | 625.16 | 74.68 | 5.112 |
| Root Relaxation Solution Time | 0.0536 | 0.0388 | 5.220 |
| Objective Fn. | 40512.5464 | 40540.9728 | 0.039 |
| Executiontime | 0.02872 | 0.0312 | 0.18 |
Salient Result for P1-P3:
| Criterion | µp1 | µp3 | | t –value| |
| Iterations | 9197.12 | 1792.80 | 3.695 |
| No. of Nodes | 926.76 | 74.68 | 4.287 |
| Root Relaxation Solution Time | 0.0328 | 0.0388 | 1.964 |
| Objective Fn. | 40220.2836 | 40540.9728 | 0.384 |
| Executiontime | 0.0236 | 0.0312 | 2.69* |
| |||
From above table we can say that between P1 and P2 there is no significant difference in terms of number of iterations and no of nodes processed; so, we can say that P1 is as good as P2.
Salient Result for P2-P3:
| Criterion | µp2 | µp3 | | t –value| |
| Iterations | 7456.60 | 1274.36 | 3.352 |
| No. of Nodes | 568.80 | 11.72 | 4.034 |
| Root Relaxation Solution Time | 0.0556 | 0.0552 | 0.110 |
| Objective Fn. | 22921.6592 | 22422.4352 | 0.848 |
| Executiontime | 0.02816 | 0.03952 | 1.551* |
| |||
Salient Result for P1-P3:
| Criterion | µp1 | µp3 | | t –value| |
| Iterations | 7464.68 | 1274.36 | 4.577 |
| No. of Nodes | 631.76 | 11.72 | 5.662 |
| Root Relaxation Solution Time | 0.0292 | 0.0552 | 8.362 |
| Objective Fn. | 23365.4344 | 22422.4352 | 1.491 |
| Executiontime | 0.02876 | 0.03952 | 1.551* |
| |||
From above table we can say that there is no significant difference in objective function values of models P1, P2 and P3 (except that P3 gives sig better objective functions than P1); but P1 takes significantly less execution time compared to P3. Therefore, we can solve problem first by using model P1 and then use this advanced start to improve further by using model P3 (GAMS offers such a capability).
As more constraints are added (5, 6, 11 and 12) progressively in model P2 and P3 we get better objective function values and at the expense of higher execution time.
Priyank Dubey (2020) has established the importance of feasibility constraints such as (11) and (12). Sharma and Verma () have established the importance of Hybrid formulations (weak constraints + most promising strong constraints). Thus, we may construct a model P4 (min (0), s.t. (0a) to (4); (8) and (9); (10) to (14) and most promising constraints associated with strong linking constraints such as (5) to (7). It is expected that this model may give best results for large sized problem instances of SSPWLP. This is a topic of future research.
None of the authors received any financial grants for conducting this research. All authors have no competing and no conflict of interest to get this work published.
Prof. RRK Sharma: He is B.E. (mechanical engineering) from VNIT Nagpur India, and PhD in management from I.I.M., Ahmedabad, INDIA. He has nearly three years of experience in automotive companies in India (Tata Motors and TVS-Suzuki). He has 33 years of teaching and research experience at the Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, I.I.T., Kanpur, 208016 INDIA. To date he has written 1217 papers (peer-reviewed (402) /under review (34) / working papers 781 (not referred)). He has developed over ten software products. To date, he has guided 68 M TECH and 23 Ph D theses at I.I.T. Kanpur. He has been Sanjay Mittal Chair Professor at IIT KANPUR (15.09.2015 to 14.09.2018) and is currently a H.A.G. scale professor at I.I.T. Kanpur. In 2015, he received “Membership Award” given by IABE USA (International Academy of Business and Economics). In 2016 he received the “Distinguished Educator Award” from IEOM (Industrial Engineering and Operations Management) Society, U.S.A. In 2021, he received IEOM Distinguished Service Award. In 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 he was invited by the Ministry of Human Resources Department, India, to participate in the NIRF rankings survey for management schools in India. In 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 he was invited to participate in the Q.S. ranking exercise for ranking management schools in South Asia in 2019, 2020, 2022 and 2023. He was invited to participate in Times Higher Education Academic survey for world university rankings in 2023.
Dr. Vinay Singh: He has earned his Bachelor Degree in engineering (Computer Science and Engineering) from RBS College Agra, Masters in Human Resource Development and Management from IIT Kharagpur and PhD in Management from IIT Kanpur. Currently he is working as Assistant Professor in the department of Management at ABV-Indian Institute of Information Technology and Management Gwalior, India since Nov 2012. So far, he has 26 publications in peer review journals to his credit. He has supervised 92 Masters Students and guided 02 PhD theses. He has also earned two national patents in embedded products design and has developed three software packages. He has received 03 research project grants from prestigious agencies of India.
Mr. Pushkar Awasthi: He is second year MTECH student in the department of Industrial and Management Engineering, IIT Kanpur 208016 India.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, we deeply appreciate the interest shown in our work and its publication. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you. The peer review process, as well as the support provided by the editorial office, have been exceptional, and the quality of the journal is very high, which was a determining factor in our decision to publish with you.
The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews journal clinically in the future time.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for the trust placed in our team for the publication in your journal. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you on this project. I am pleased to inform you that both the peer review process and the attention from the editorial coordination have been excellent. Your team has worked with dedication and professionalism to ensure that your publication meets the highest standards of quality. We are confident that this collaboration will result in mutual success, and we are eager to see the fruits of this shared effort.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I hope this message finds you well. I want to express my utmost gratitude for your excellent work and for the dedication and speed in the publication process of my article titled "Navigating Innovation: Qualitative Insights on Using Technology for Health Education in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients." I am very satisfied with the peer review process, the support from the editorial office, and the quality of the journal. I hope we can maintain our scientific relationship in the long term.
Dear Monica Gissare, - Editorial Coordinator of Nutrition and Food Processing. ¨My testimony with you is truly professional, with a positive response regarding the follow-up of the article and its review, you took into account my qualities and the importance of the topic¨.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, The review process for the article “The Handling of Anti-aggregants and Anticoagulants in the Oncologic Heart Patient Submitted to Surgery” was extremely rigorous and detailed. From the initial submission to the final acceptance, the editorial team at the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” demonstrated a high level of professionalism and dedication. The reviewers provided constructive and detailed feedback, which was essential for improving the quality of our work. Communication was always clear and efficient, ensuring that all our questions were promptly addressed. The quality of the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” is undeniable. It is a peer-reviewed, open-access publication dedicated exclusively to disseminating high-quality research in the field of clinical cardiology and cardiovascular interventions. The journal's impact factor is currently under evaluation, and it is indexed in reputable databases, which further reinforces its credibility and relevance in the scientific field. I highly recommend this journal to researchers looking for a reputable platform to publish their studies.
Dear Editorial Coordinator of the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing! "I would like to thank the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing for including and publishing my article. The peer review process was very quick, movement and precise. The Editorial Board has done an extremely conscientious job with much help, valuable comments and advices. I find the journal very valuable from a professional point of view, thank you very much for allowing me to be part of it and I would like to participate in the future!”
Dealing with The Journal of Neurology and Neurological Surgery was very smooth and comprehensive. The office staff took time to address my needs and the response from editors and the office was prompt and fair. I certainly hope to publish with this journal again.Their professionalism is apparent and more than satisfactory. Susan Weiner
