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.
I have assessed the revised version and am happy with the revisions and changes made to the manuscript. The manuscript is ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sebastian Ventura, a PeerJ Computer Science Section Editor covering this Section #]
Based on the reviewers' comments please revise and resubmit.
[# 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/ #]
A. Line # 23, what is MR?
B. The related work/literature review section is missing. A detailed literature review is required to know what has been done so far. Secondly, study goals can also be set accordingly. Somehow, related work is discussed in the first paragraph of the discussion section.
C. Line # 73, the used data set should be uploaded to some online repository.
D. Line # 97, why 0.04 threshold is used?
E. Line # 204, similarly, alpha with a value of 0.05 is used why?
F. Line # 215, what is TPS?
G. The conclusion section does not contain future directions.
H. Not enough references have been cited.
Experimental design details are missing. It will be difficult for someone to reproduce the results. Methods missing sufficient detail and information to replicate the work. For example, python code used etc.
With the currently provided details, validating the findings of this work will be difficult.
Write down the research contribution of this work. The conclusion section is missing gaps / future directions.
Manuscript formatting recommended for peerj is not followed. For example,
• Left justify all text to the left margin. Do not 'full width' justify.
• Similarly, figures and tables should be uploaded separately.
The authors proposed a transformer-based deep learning pipeline. Despite the interest and importance of the proposal,
1- The motivation is not shows in the introduction. The authors should give why they are motivated by tackling with this problem and what they aim to achieve as compared to what was done previously. The authors need to further clarify.
2- The introduction should also include more related work since there is no related work section. This will help the author to more motivate their work by comparing with exist work and discussing the gap and weakness with exist work.
3- In Data collection section, the authors should include this part in the performance section and there is no contribution or novelty with this part.
4- The authors did good work in the system model and the evaluation. However, the method comparison needs more work. The author should compare their work with other recent work (algorithms). I see in the Discussion section some related work discussed, but still the authors need to show the results using figures, tables,… which will make it simple for the reader. In addition, I suggest using more than one performance measure method to show novelty in the proposed work.
5- The conclusion can have more information as a lot of work proposed in this paper. I suggest author to add a paragraph that conclude the technical part of the proposed work.
Explained in the basic report
Explained in the basic report
The paper is well-written. However, the literature review needs to be further enriched.
The work addresses an interesting problem of multi-modality prostate image registration. The proposed work appears to fill a knowledge gap. The methods have been described with sufficient details.
The research findings have been validated.
The manuscript is appropriate for publication in this journal.
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.