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 reviewers' comments have been addressed. I recommend it for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Marieke Huisman, a PeerJ Computer Science Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment.
No comment
No comment
All suggestions and comments already updated in the new manuscript
We have received two reports for the paper. In addition to the comments raised, the paper can be improved by considering the following points: 1. the abstract can be restructured without the lists but focusing more on the novelty and difficulty of the proposed method. 2. The information entropy expression can be better explained with some appropriate background. 3. More comparison study is needed for the section SIMULATING THE SYSTEM BEHAVIOR WITH FCMS.
[# 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/ #]
The Abstract need to be improved. I suggest that the author improve it.
Fig 5b was supposed to be NHL see line 355-360 while Fig 5c should be AHL see line 378-382
The English Language used is okay but can still be improved on.
This design meet the standard
The validity of the finding meet standard
I comment the authors for the good work done and the set data used. In addition, the manuscript is clearly written in clear, professional unambiguous language. If there is a weakness, it is in the abstract which should be improved upon before acceptance.
The language of the article is clear. The diagrams used are clear. The different sections and sub-sections of the paper need to be numbered. The structure of the paper could be improved further so that the flow of information from one section to another to be better.
The research question is well-defined and it is relevant to the scope of the journal. The methods applied are described with the necessary detail. There is detailed information on the different methods applied, however it would be interesting if the authors selected a specific, real-life problem (eg. a large complex decision making problem) and show the impact of FCMpy on the implementation of Machine Algorithms algorithms for FCMs. This is only a suggestion though as the authors do this already up to a specific degree.
The section of Conclusions is very concise and it needs to be enhanced.
Overall, an interesting paper. The authors need to enhance the conclusions of the paper as this is an important section of the paper.
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.