Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on June 29th, 2022 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on July 17th, 2022.
  • The first revision was submitted on August 9th, 2022 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 22nd, 2022.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Aug 22, 2022 · Academic Editor

Accept

Based on the reviewers' suggestion, the paper is accepted.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jyotismita Chaki, a PeerJ Computer Science Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The author gives an explanation for my all concerns, I have no other concerns.

Experimental design

no comments

Validity of the findings

no comments

Additional comments

no comments

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

All my questions were clarified.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jul 17, 2022 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

The authors are requested to make, "major revisions".

[# 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. #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The author has done good work, Presentation is also good. There are some comments for the author?

What is the significance of this study? How you can differentiate it from literature?
You mentioned that "Moreover, an analysis was performed based on the answered questions to help make research decisions"

What kind of answered questions? are these contextual-based analyses?
is there any statistical approach to analyzing the significance of the results?
Difficult to understand the finding of the study.

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Additional comments

No comments

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The author should mention how the twitter_score, and patent_score are given to selected AI publications. Are these scores collected from external sources?

Experimental design

Please include the discussion on the applicability of the proposed approach in other field research articles. For instance, computer networks, cancer research, etc.

Validity of the findings

The scalability of the proposed approach should be discussed. For example, why was the article count of 8000 selected for evaluation.

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.