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.
Thank you for addressing the reviewers' comments. I have added four minor edits in the attached pdf. Please make those changes in the manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Monika Mortimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please address one of the reviewers' comments.
The authors have answered all of my concerns.
none
none
none
The literature review part still needs to be expanded. The introduction and the literature review parts are together and this section isn't enough to support both parts sufficiently. Probably you need to re-design this section to the two detailed sections.
Acceptable.
Acceptable.
I have gone through the reviewers' comments. Please make the suggested 'major revisions' and resubmit the paper. Thanks.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal 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 rebuttal 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 rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
Please see the attached file.
Please see the attached file.
Please see the attached file.
Please see the attached file.
There is no literature review part. Normally, the research gap must be conducted based on the literature review. I highly recommend that the authors add a detailed literature review to the article.
Another critical point is that 80% of the references are local references. For international work, using only 20% of international studies doesn't look professional.
Why didn't you use data between 2020 - 2023? We are in 2024, and this 3-year gap is really considerable.
In the discussion part, it would be great if the authors explain how their local problem can be a good example or case for similar problems worldwide.
It would be interesting to compare this study and similar studies based on the literature review in the discussion section.
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.