4.

Analysis Static and Explicit Dynamic Load of Non-

Pneumatic Tire with Hexagonal Honeycombs Spokes in
Indonesian Military Tactical Vehicle
Author(s)Farit Hendro Wibowo, Moch. Agus Choiron, Anindito Purnowidodo
please provide us at least two potential reviewers (name, email and institution), thanks.

Farit Hendro Wibowo, Moch. Agus Choiron, Anindito Purnowidodo:

We have reached a decision regarding your submission to International Journal of Integrated

Engineering, "Analysis Static and Explicit Dynamic Load of Non-Pneumatic Tire with Hexagonal
Honeycombs Spokes in Indonesian Military Tactical Vehicle".

Our decision is to: Decline

Associate Profesor Ir. Ts. Dr. Al Emran Ismail

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
emran@uthm.edu.my

------------------------------------------------------ Reviewer A:
Clearly define the main contribution of your study in the last paragraph of the introduction.
Recommendation: Accept Submission ------------------------------------------------------ --------------------

---------------------------------- Reviewer D:
This is an interesting study and the authors have collected a few set of data. However, there is lack
of information/references to support the statement, justifications, models and properties stated in
the paper.

ABSTRACT
Abstract should consist of 6 basic input as listed below:
1. Intro 2. Problem 3. Objective 4. Method 5. Results 6. Conclusion
Your abstract lack one input which is the problem statement. Please clearly state your problem in the
abstract.
INTRODUCTION
Lack of references related to the study on honeycomb spokes. Should have references on that area
because your studies is focus on the honeycomb spokes. It will helps to improve your discussion part.
METHOD AND MATERIAL
1. You should have justification/statement on the data of the Parametric Design (Table 1). On what
matters did choose/use that data for your studies.
2. Is there any reference for the material properties mention in page 3? Did you get the data from
supplier or from the previous study? You have to mention clearly where did you get the data.
3. Did you perform any numerical validation? How did you validate your model?
4. Did you perform any convergence analysis?
5. You have mention all the information related to this study. Step by step on how you perform the
analysis; which part of the model become variable parameters?
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
1. Your discussion is not strong. You should discuss the findings with relate/support/justify from the
literature review. Then it will show that you get better results or better findings with relevant
relate/support/justification.
CONCLUSION
The conclusion is too simple. Please elaborate more.
Recommendation: Decline Submission