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.
All the reviewers' comments have been addressed carefully and sufficiently, the revisions are rational from my point of view, I think the current version of the paper can be accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Daniel Katz, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
It is persuasive.
The standards have been met.
They are valid.
Kudos to the authors for executing the revisions well.
Items are acceptable
Items are acceptable
Items are acceptable
There is no special comment
Based on reviewers' comments the manuscript needs some 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/ #]
1- Some minor grammatical errors are observed in the text (for example, the words its-reduce-system-state-supplement, system in lines 22, 24, 30, 31, 33, and 41 respectively in the abstract section) which need to be corrected.
2- The authors have drawn a conclusion from the first paragraph of the introduction (lines 78 and 79), while they used old sources before; It is necessary to examine the more recent origin. There is a similar case in lines 160 and 161.
3- It is suggested to add the research background section based on the research conducted in recent years.
The research question is well defined, the standards of a scientific report have been followed, complete and accurate details have been provided, and the gap identified has been filled.
The manuscript has an impact and novelty, the data is presented in an adequate form and the results are significant.
1- It is better for the authors to clearly state the contribution of the research in the abstract.
2- Some claims made in the text are made without the support of literature. It is necessary for the authors to use reliable and up-to-date sources (see lines 88 to 110, 124 to 129, and 148 to 155).
3- It is better to provide an authentic source for formulas taken from other studies.
The research topic is very interesting. But it is better to correct the following items:
1- The abstract is incomplete. The main problem of the research is not clear. And you should bring at least two key results.
2- Because the Bayes hypothesis is the important issue of this research, it is better to describe the Bayes problem.
3- In the PROPOSED METHODOLOGY section, it is better. First, specify the implementation steps of the problem. It is confusing.
4- Beta value is considered for three modes. (0-0.5-1). In what conditions are they used? What does zero mean? What does the value of 0.5 mean? Which one is more suitable?
5- Many constraints and variables are not defined. Define them first.
6- The conclusion should be more complete and clear.that is weak
No comment
Describe the validation of the method. The given example is not enough.
The research topic is very interesting. But it is better to correct the following items:
1- The abstract is incomplete. The main problem of the research is not clear. And you should bring at least two key results.
2- Because the Bayes hypothesis is the important issue of this research, it is better to describe the Bayes problem.
3- In the PROPOSED METHODOLOGY section, it is better. First, specify the implementation steps of the problem. It is confusing.
4- Beta value is considered for three modes. (0-0.5-1). In what conditions are they used? What does zero mean? What does the value of 0.5 mean? Which one is more suitable?
5- Many constraints and variables are not defined. Define them first.
6- The conclusion should be more complete and clear.that is weak
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.