All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thanks for your revision based on review comments, and I am happy to accept it in current form. Congratulation!
I hope you will submit your manuscript again to our Journal in the future.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jörg Oehlmann, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
This manuscript has been reviewed by two experts in this research field and both of them suggest a minor revision. Please modify your manuscript based on these comments accordingly.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
The authors clearly state the objectives, methodology and present results in a lucid way.
Overall the quality of the manuscript conform to the standards of PeerJ. However, the novelty of the study is questionable as the authors themselves have published similar kind of studies previously. Hence, the authors need to highlight the research gaps and need for this study. Multiple comparisons across different study areas wouldn't serve the novelty purpose.
Justify with reasons for selecting Bayesian, generalized pivotal quantity and parametric bootstrap approaches for formulating SCI.
Line 79: what "Model" is that?
Table 2: I think the data period seems missing in this table. Mention the dates or week in the table.
Discuss the limitations of the GPQ method and the reasons for it.
The results could be further analyzed and reported in the form of text.
Language needs a thorough check. Several typo errors were seen during my review. Example line 106: generalized instead of generalize
The paper is written well and clear.
The methods were designed correctly and had sufficient information.
The new knowledge was proposed in this paper.
There are some comments for improving the paper:
1. The results must be added in the abstract.
2. What is the difference between the zero-inflated lognormal (ZILN) model and the delta-lognormal model? Please add it in the paper.
3. Many formula sentences are not complete (lack of the full stop). See Eqs.(1), (3), (4), (5), (8), (9), (20), (22).
4. In lines 85-89, the symbols and are used inconsistency.
5. In Table 5, why do the widths of Bayesian SCIs -based PMB prior and Bayesian SCIs -based RB prior are the same in all pairwise?
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.