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 October 26th, 2022 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on December 5th, 2022.
  • The first revision was submitted on January 10th, 2023 and was reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on January 17th, 2023.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Jan 17, 2023 · Academic Editor

Accept

Dear Authors,
Your manuscript has been accepted.

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

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

I am satisfied with the revised paper. It could be accepted now.

Experimental design

I am satisfied with the revised paper. It could be accepted now.

Validity of the findings

I am satisfied with the revised paper. It could be accepted now.

Additional comments

I am satisfied with the revised paper. It could be accepted now.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Clear and unambiguous

Experimental design

Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.

Validity of the findings

Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.

Additional comments

No additional comments

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

no comment

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Dec 5, 2022 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Dear Authors, Please revise and resubmit your manuscript. Improve the major contributions of this work and present it as bullet points in the introduction. Provide the key limitations of this work in the conclusions. Also, improve the English language presentation of this manuscript.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Attached as pdf file.

Experimental design

Attached as pdf file.

Validity of the findings

Attached as pdf file.

Additional comments

Attached as pdf file.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

See the attachment

Experimental design

See the attachment

Validity of the findings

See the attachment

Additional comments

See the attachment

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

See attached PDF

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

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.