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.
The manuscript can be accept in the current form.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Computer Science Section Editor covering this Section #]
The topic is very important and interesting, but there are still some concerns that should be addressed.
1. More background description on the mentioned concept to be added.
2. Motivation of this study is not clear, and should be clarified.
3.The language usage throughout this paper need to be improved, the author should do some proofreading on it.
4. I still found \N(v)\ instead of |N(v)|.
[# 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) #]
The paper is very much improved and the current version seems to be an acceptable article. However, the writing can still be improved. Also, I still found \N(v)\ instead of |N(v)|.
All the questions are addressed.
The issue is addressed.
Based on reviewers comments the manuscript needs revisions.
[# 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/ #]
In this research, there is no order for the contents in different sections. It is difficult to read the text due to the fragmentation. It is better to make an orderly arrangement of the background of work and challenges. The model system should be better shown with a block diagram or representational figure. Limitations and conditions should be mentioned in the proposed innovation or solution, etc...
method and proposed scheme should be explained better in formula and illustration....
novelty is not clear and is not figured out in a good way..it is hard for reader to understand the step by step method...
The paper proposes a new algorithm to detect communities locally in social networks by introducing new similarity functions. The algorithm is compared with other state of the art algorithms and shows improvements. The paper is well structured and the related works are well-explained. However, the English can be improved. Also, there are some questions and comments which need to be addressed.
1. I suppose the two definitions 1 and 2 define the same concept? If not, please add more details.
2. It would be more thoughtful if you could add written explanations to the definitions.
3. Please use | instead of / in formulas.
4. Please review the indexing of the definitions.
5. Line 246 - Definition 9 - I could not find NS(u,v) defined in the paper?
6. Line 3 - Calculate the degree of each node based on Definition 4Definition 5, - 4 or 5?
7. Line 9 is redundant.
8. All the tables fell to the end of the paper. The tables must appear where they are being referenced.
9. Please reduce the size of the texts on the tables, so the cells fit perfectly – for example you have the number 1000 in two lines in table 4.
10. Please indicate the best scores in tables by making them bold or other ways.
11. Please use a united structure for all tables.
12. Please specify the unit of time reported for algorithms.
The research problem is well-defined. However, there are some questions on the algorithms proposed and the experiments:
1. About the termination condition of the Seed selection process in Algorithm 1, what if the v_seed is the local central node and is the core node of the community itself. In this case the while loop never stops.
2. How did you indicate the ground-truth communities of the real-word networks to calculate F-score.
The proposed algorithm shows improvements. The findings seems to be valid. Also, there is a comment on the improvement of the paper:
1. The experiment has been done on several networks but all the employed networks have the same topology. The main challenge of the community detection problem is to indicate communities in diverse types of social networks. In this way, you can show if the proposed metric can capture the best communities in different networks. So, other types of real-world networks need to be involved in the experiments.
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.