Tabela de conteúdos
Dear Pedro Ribeiro de Andrade, Antonio Miguel Vieira Monteiro, Gilberto Câmara et al.,
Thank you for submitting your article, 'Games on Cellular Spaces', to the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. I have now received recommendations and comments from referees.
As you will see from the extracts from their reports that I have appended to this message, the referees thought that your article reported interesting work worthy of publication in JASSS. However, all the referees considered that there needs to be substantial improvement in the clarity and detail of your description of your model.
I hope that you will revise the article according to these comments and resubmit it to the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. When you do, I shall send the new version back to these referees, and possibly to others, so it would be helpful if you could include also a brief note indicating the changes that you have made.
You might also find the guidelines at http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/admin/submit.html useful.
With best wishes,
Nigel Gilbert Editor, JASSS
Referee 1:
The article presents an interesting model to study the dynamics of uncooperative agents introducing the spatial mobility for them. I liked the idea of a cell space completely dissociated from the agents, where they can be moved according to some criterion (in this case random walk) and compete with new neighbours.
This idea is original to me and is worth the publication of the work since it can serve as an impulse to introduce spatial dynamics in many other models.
I did not find particularly interesting the particular cases studied by the authors in the work (perhaps for other readers but the interest is the model itself). For this reason I believe that is an adequate work to be published in Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation.
There are two negative aspects to emphasize: There is not any justification for the hypothesis of the model. About which class of individuals or content are the authors thinking? Really I don't know any that can be approximated by the kind of agent and game presented here.
No spatial or mobility information is obtained from the results of the model. When I read the title 'Games on Cellular Spaces: How Mobility Affects Equilibrium', thought to find information as the agents are grouped or repelled spatially, or perhaps somewhat about the mean path. The only information is the number of movements carried out for each category of player.
The first criticism can be met by adding in the introduction section the ideas that guided the author to propose this type of dynamics. If it is possible, justify what type of society or behaviour tries to shape with this play.
The second can be part of a future work; I believe that the cellular space proposed in the model, with some changes can be adapted to give very interesting spatial information. An example of spatial maps for players that seek satisfaction can be seen in NOWAK, M. A. and MAY, R. M. (1992), 'Evolutionary Games and Spatial Chaos',Nature, 359, 826-29. Or more recently in 'The Fate of Spatial Dilemmas with Different Fuzzy Measures of Success' Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation vol. 8, no. 3
I repeat, add the ideas behind the use of that set of rules or kind of player.
20 x 20 is a small world, more if is plane. In the 400 places to play, there is 80 that have limited mobility. Perhaps be better to do continuous edges.
The scales in the figures are not very visible, a suggestion is to edit them and insert a type of letter more visible.
In figure 3 and 5 there's no explanation for what is each colour.
The section '5.2. Extra gain' is not clear. If M is a model structure, I suppose Mgk = (C, 2, {E, ~E}, uk, {s0.1, s0.5, s1.0}, 1200, 200, 20), uk(x) = u(x) + k. Should be something like Mgk = (C, 2, {E, ~E}, u + k, {s0.1, s0.5, s1.0}, 1200, 200, 20) Where u is payoff matrix, and k an additive constant.
I did not understand which increment k corresponds to figure 4.
If the article describes a simulation model, is there enough detail provided for the relevant output from the model to be replicated by a reader (the description might be in the form of an algorithm, pseudo-code, or access to the simulation program itself)?
The authors give no detail of how the simulation is implemented, neither on what platform it runs, time delay for each round, etc.
Has the author sufficiently taken advantage of the opportunities available through electronic publication (e.g. access to program code or data; colour illustrations; animations)? If not, have you any suggestions that could be forwarded to the author?
The author only uses the colour illustrations.
Referee 2:
The objectives are clear and the model, as well as the procedure and the results, are correctly described. The theoretical and formal backgrounds are well summarized. In my opinion, the research work described in the manuscript is quite fine. However there are two questions that remain unclear. First, the manuscript fails to describe the process to implement the model into the computer program. Second, the manuscript doesn't take advantage of the electronic publication facilities. I think the author/s should improve the manuscript introducing pseudo code and/or access to the program and some animation that help us to understand how the program runs. I could recommend the publication in the JASSS, but the manuscript should be improved in those two subjects before publication.
If the article describes a simulation model, is there enough detail provided for the relevant output from the model to be replicated by a reader (the description might be in the form of an algorithm, pseudo-code, or access to the simulation program itself)?
The model was clearly explained and the author/s provides a verbose description and formulas. However, the author/s doesn't explain how exactly the model runs in the computer. I suggested a more accurate description of the implementation process into the computer and the inclusion of some pseudo code.
Has the author sufficiently taken advantage of the opportunities available through electronic publication (e.g. access to program code or data; colour illustrations; animations)? If not, have you any suggestions that could be forwarded to the author?
The answer to this question is clear: Definitely not. Only some color illustrations remind the reader that he/she is in front of an electronic publication (and colored illustrations are not a definitive advantage of an electronic publication over a classical one). In fact the current version of the manuscript could be submitted to a paper journal. So, this subject should be improved if the manuscript is submitted to an electronic journal. I suggest, for example, the access to the simulation program and /or to include some animation.
Referee 3:
The paper is motivated by an interesting research question and the work is well done. The current style, though, is below standard so that it is hard to follow the logic and the description of the model. Many concepts are introduced without a definition. The conclusions could be tightened and strengthened. Many grammatical mistakes.
If the article describes a simulation model, is there enough detail provided for the relevant output from the model to be replicated by a reader (the description might be in the form of an algorithm, pseudo-code, or access to the simulation program itself)?
Not enough details to allow replication.
Has the author sufficiently taken advantage of the opportunities available through electronic publication (e.g. access to program code or data; colour illustrations; animations)? If not, have you any suggestions that could be forwarded to the author?
No. the graphs are pretty basics. Maybe the author/s could provide movies/animations?