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.
The authors have addressed all the comments raised in the previous review round.
Although all the comments were brief, two out of three of the reviewers recommended Major Revision. Please revise your paper based on the comments.
The manuscript is well-written and the information is properly presented and structured in accordance with the journal requirements.
The information provided focuses on a research which is within the scope of the journal.
Novelty of the research could be improved in the introduction section.
The introduction should include some studies (references), if available, on EVA-based applications on midsole shoe structure.
The study is conducted using EVA as a base material, which has not been characterized throughout the text, and, in my opinion, some research focused on this material should have been carried out in order to obtain better and complete conclusions.
Some relations between EVA properties and the biomechanical properties of the shoe should be addressed.
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
This paper conducted a machine learning analysis to identify features. It is interesting.
(1) How do you enroll the subjects?
(2) Why do you filter the marker coordinates using 12 Hz zero-lag 4th-order low-pass Butterworth filter?
(3) Please give the mathematical expression of butterworth filter
(4) Line 208, please define IG.
(5) Why support vector machine is not used? It is also a good classifier. But the author did not mention it at all.
(6) Line 255, what is the incremental step for {10,…,75};
(7) How do you apply ANN in this study, please explain it clearly.
(8) What is the structure of ANN?
(9) Some ANN-related papers are not seen in this paper, for example,
a. Preetha Phillips. Fruit Classification by Biogeography-based Optimization and Feedforward Neural Network. Expert Systems. 2016, 33(3): 239-253
b. Zhihai Lu. A Pathological Brain Detection System Based on Radial Basis Function Neural Network. Journal of Medical Imaging and Health Informatics. 2016, 6(5): 1218-1222
- The manuscript adheres to PeerJ templates, but parts of it are very confusing to understand.
- Very confusing. Even after reading it several times, I am still not sure what you actually classified. Please rewrite this section to make more clear.
- I don't understand what are those reported numbers in Figure 2 and Figure 4. It is probably due to a lack of details in the methodology section, but they are difficult to understand.
- You should discuss some of recent gait papers (e.g., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23751971) and how those features can be related to some of you used in your own work.
- It's not clear from the manuscript why these results would matter to a general science audience. It seems more suitable for a shoe manufacturer. Hence, the authors should emphasize the science part.
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.