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 14th, 2022 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on December 28th, 2022.
  • The first revision was submitted on January 17th, 2023 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on February 2nd, 2023 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on February 20th, 2023 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on March 15th, 2023.

Version 0.4 (accepted)

· Mar 15, 2023 · Academic Editor

Accept

Your submission is ready for publication.

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

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The manuscript is updated and seems addressed the concerns

Experimental design

Looks good

Validity of the findings

Acceptable

Additional comments

I would like to suggest the editor for further decisions.
If the paper meets journal standards I would like to recommend for acceptance.

Thank you for inviting.

Version 0.3

· Feb 13, 2023 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please follow the reviewer's comments properly and resubmit the revised version of your paper as soon as possible.

Thank you very much

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

would like to suggest reviewing all the highlighted texts again, Please do express content in standard form.
CNN's are used for representation and classification part is handled by softmax. so please do revisit 5.2 section. also 4.4.3 - 4.4.7 sections revisit.

Experimental design

looks good

Validity of the findings

looks good

Additional comments

do review again

Version 0.2

· Jan 31, 2023 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Just a few more comments to either address or rebut.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Add some more insights on over all idea

Experimental design

sufficient

Validity of the findings

Needs more discussion on the ML model insights and results table

Additional comments

Although the originality and the part of innovation in this article remains to be proven, it can however be published if one considers its didactic and pedagogical value.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

All my raised points are addressed

Experimental design

All my raised points are addressed

Validity of the findings

All my raised points are addressed

Additional comments

All my raised points are addressed

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Dec 28, 2022 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Please revise your paper according to the reviewer's comments.
Thanks.

[# 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 copyediting@peerj.com 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/ #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Needs to improve and emphasize methodology
Predictive model should be addressed properly.
figure 10 and 11 can be merged with temp with smoke and light.

Experimental design

What are the list major contributions and discuss.

Validity of the findings

Do address the input data format and preprocessing of which has passed to ML algorithms for decision making.

Need to update more performance matrics.

Additional comments

Overall improvement is required

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The paper present a relevant topic of research as the world in moving towards everything on internet.
The idea and the results are presented in a good way, the authors need to consider following minor edits for final publications:
English need a polishing and grammar check.
I suggest to add some line at the end of introduction section aiming to present the scope of your research work and what authors could expect in the results section.
Need to elaborate the importance of used research methodology.

Experimental design

Research methodology is well described.
I suggest to give justification of used research approach with latest references.
Also grape the importance and novelty of used research methodology.

Validity of the findings

IoT based smart home automation using blockchain and deep learning models, is good and timely study that will give a good insight to industry practitioners to develop new and effective strategies to make the IoT successful and efficient in real world environment.
I suggest to elaborate the implications of your study for research and practitioners community.

Additional comments

No

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.