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.
Dear Authors,
I am pleased to inform you that your paper has now been accepted for publication. Thank you very much for choosing PeerJ Computer Science.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Yilun Shang, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have addressed all issues and article reporting is fine now.
Authors have addressed all issues identified.
All necessary changes have been made by authors in the revised article.
The article is fine and ready for publishing.
The authors have addressed my comments in the proper way.
The authors have addressed my comments in the proper way.
The authors have addressed my comments in the proper way.
The authors have addressed my comments in the proper way.
Please revise your paper according to the reviewers' comments.
Thank you very much.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
[# 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/ #]
Overall the manuscript is well organized, However there are several grammatical issues as well as inappropriate content as followed.
1 - Page 6, Line 73, "the following section......"; which following section?
2 - The page 7, Figure 1 caption needs to corrections. Some words are not correctly rendered.
3 - Page 9, Line 218, "This query expansion technique is examined....." please use correct the way of discussing published. It should be in past tense.
4 - Page 11: the method to referring to equation is not appropriate. Please use the equation number.
5 - Page 18: section don't provides the in text quantitative descriptions of results such as difference in performance which makes it hard for reader to keep focus. Moreover the presentation of graphs is not appropriate, it is better to make one graph (one for CW09B and one for CW12B) and projecting each case with line graph.
6 - Page 19: Feature analysis section starts with a figure?
7 - page 20: line 545 to 547, In this work......" i think the authors have used this many times. it is better to write in context of implications rather than reintroducing the paper.
8 - Page 21, Conclusion has been written in abstract form which is not a good practice. Conclusion should summarize the new findings in context research questions and their significance and implications.
the experimental approach is well designed.
Although authors have all analyses all the relevant aspects of the selective query, However following issue throughout the manuscript.
5 - Page 18: section don't provides the in text quantitative descriptions of results such as difference in performance which makes it hard for reader to keep focus. Moreover the presentation of graphs is not appropriate, it is better to make one graph (one for CW09B and one for CW12B) and projecting each case with line graph.
The same is the case with other sections.
The article needs though review in in terms of presentation of the findings and grammatical correctness.
The paper "A selective approach to stemming for minimizing the risk of failure in information retrieval systems" represents a very good study. The authors are very familiar with the fields covered in the paper. It is well written with all the necessary elements.
The paper has great potential and can be accepted after major corrections:
- Citing a large number of papers in one sentence without any explanation is not popular. Three references are maximum that can be cited in one sentence. For example, in the introduction, you have "It has been a long-standing debate whether stemming contributes to the effectiveness of an IR system (Harman, 1991; Krovetz, 1993; Hull, 1996; Flores and Moreira, 2016; Alotaibi and Gupta, 2018)".
- A lot of old references are cited in the paper. I think that should be removed each old reference which isn't core for the paper.
- Titles of some Figures and Tables are too long. Please shorten it.
- Clearly described aims, the main contributions, novelty, and verification of results should be more concise described in the abstract.
- Please clearly separate the advantages of your paper in more detail.
- What new brings your paper? Novelty and contributions should be well described.
- Future research in conclusion is poor, you should add more guidelines.
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.