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.
Congratulations and thank you in addressing the comments and suggestions properly.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sebastian Ventura, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
.
.
.
i think this version warrants publication. Though, it is Editor's decision
I see a great improvement in this revised form. It's easier to follow, and key points are less vague - references are adequate, style & language as well
.
.
.
Thank you for the contribution. The reviewers have some comments and I had to step in because of the brevity of some revisions. Please go through the manuscript again in detail providing the answer to the raised questions.
Thank you for this invitation. Generally, iO think this submission is acceptable, though it is pretty difficult to find one's way out of that awkward referencing system you have used. Also, I think conclusions should t the time. follow the research questions, what they do not ar
Appropriate
Results are sane and encouraging.
well presented
In general, I feel this warrants publication. However, I must criticize the referencing system used. It's tough to follow authors' ideas. Likewise, I think it is awkward to publish a paper on CNNs and introduce that term after a while. So, this should be changed, whatsoever.
no comment'
exceptional, just modify thw "conclusions" - think - what do your findings actually mean, what do you add to the science
Generally, this is a “go-to”. Truth be told, there are some things that have to be improved
• Abbreviations are a common occurrence in research manuscripts a. However, they can also cause a lot of confusion, and make communication unclear if they are not used with caution. So, it is a general rule, all abbreviations/acronyms should be written out in full on first use (in both the abstract and the paper itself) and followed by the abbreviated form in parentheses, as in 'the American Psychological Association (APA)'.
• Usual practice with parenthetical citations (i.e., wgere both the author name and publication date are enclosed within parentheses) should include the year, When the name of the author is part of the narrative and appears outside of parentheses (like…Morin (1988) described…), after the first citation in each paragraph you need not include the year in subsequent nonparenthetical citations as long as the study cannot be confused with other studies in the article (see p. 174 in the sixth edition of the Publication Manual).
• I’m not sure I can follow “yours” difference between “increase of ” and “increase by“. Specifically, in ln 35 you say “…increase of 16.5%...”, do you mean of or by?
• Paragraphs lns 40-49 and 34-39 should change positions. I believe this could improve the narrative.
• It is a bit weird that your firs mention of Convolutional Neural Network is in the “materials and methods” ln 204.
extreenly good
high
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.