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 paper is in an improved format, and is clearly suitable for publication in PeerJ Computer Science.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Daniel S. Katz, a PeerJ Computer Science Section Editor covering this Section #]
The author has addressed the previous comments effectively.
The author has addressed the previous comments effectively.
The author has addressed the previous comments effectively.
Happy with the revised version
Happy with the revised version
Happy with the revised version
The comments provided by the reviewers are required for this paper to be published in PeerJ Computer Science.
[# 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/ #]
This paper discusses the alignment of concepts between UML diagrams, i.e., use case and sequence diagrams, which is relevant and important.
The introduction provides a comprehensive system analysis and design overview, including its history, importance, and modeling approaches. The paper highlights the significance of UML diagrams in teaching and designing systems, especially in the context of sustainability. The authors should discuss how sustainability relates to transforming use to sequence diagrams. Or remove the sustainability approach.
The section provides a clear and detailed description of the methodology and process adopted to implement the alignment tool. The author has effectively used various references to support their statements and provide a comprehensive understanding of the tools used in the implementation.
The use of Java programming language, Eclipse Modeling Framework, and PlantUML is well-justified and explained, and their roles in the implementation process are clearly delineated. The use of Eclipse as an IDE for Java development and PlantUML to generate graphical representations of the diagrams is an appropriate choice for this implementation.
Regarding the section that outlines the basic syntax of PlantUML, the author provides clear instructions and breaks down the process into manageable steps. Using references to support the content adds credibility to the text and makes it more convincing. Overall, the text is well-organized, easy to follow, and effectively conveys the key points about PlantUML. However, the author may consider adding more examples to illustrate how the syntax works in practice.
Overall, the paper presents an interesting approach to transforming use case diagrams to sequence diagrams using PlantUML, a text-based diagram generation language. The authors have highlighted the benefits of using this approach, such as flexibility, standardization, and integration with other software engineering tools. They have also discussed the potential educational applications of aligning concepts between homogeneous diagrams, which can help strengthen the system specification requirements and provide a more unified approach to system design.
However, there are a few areas that could be improved:
• While the authors have mentioned the benefits of their approach, it would be helpful to provide some examples or case studies to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.
• It is also unclear what the authors mean by "collaborative diagram." It would be helpful to provide more information on this and how it relates to the use case and sequence diagrams.
Overall, this paper provides a valuable contribution to the field of software engineering, and the proposed method has the potential to be useful in both educational and practical settings. However, addressing the above-mentioned points would strengthen the paper further.
Comment 1: The abstract does not include any quantitative measurement; authors should consider updating the abstract accordingly.
Comment 2: Remove ‘algorithms’ from keywords.
Comment 3: One area where the Introduction could be improved is in the organisation and flow of the text. The paper jumps from discussing the importance of system analysis and design to discussing the traditional and object-oriented modeling approaches without a clear transition. Restructuring the text to have a clearer flow and organization would make it easier for readers to follow and understand the arguments being presented. In addition, include the research question and at least the objective of the study statements in the introduction.
Comment 4: Add one paragraph/bullet point at the end of the introduction; what you intend to do in this research and link them to respective section(s) of the manuscript. (contribution/s)
Comment 5: In Figure 14, the alignment algorithm's flowchart is unclear and not necessarily present.
Comment 6: Some figures without names/titles, please check all the figures.
Comment 7: Add Literature review section.
Comment 8: The conclusion needs to be rewritten, make it shorter and more precise.
Comment 1: The abstract does not include any quantitative measurement; authors should consider updating the abstract accordingly.
Comment 2: Remove ‘algorithms’ from keywords.
Comment 3: One area where the Introduction could be improved is in the organisation and flow of the text. The paper jumps from discussing the importance of system analysis and design to discussing the traditional and object-oriented modeling approaches without a clear transition. Restructuring the text to have a clearer flow and organization would make it easier for readers to follow and understand the arguments being presented. In addition, include the research question and at least the objective of the study statements in the introduction.
Comment 4: Add one paragraph/bullet point at the end of the introduction; what you intend to do in this research and link them to respective section(s) of the manuscript. (contribution/s)
Comment 5: In Figure 14, the alignment algorithm's flowchart is unclear and not necessarily present.
Comment 6: Some figures without names/titles, please check all the figures.
Comment 7: Add Literature review section.
Comment 8: The conclusion needs to be rewritten, make it shorter and more precise.
Comment 1: The abstract does not include any quantitative measurement; authors should consider updating the abstract accordingly.
Comment 2: Remove ‘algorithms’ from keywords.
Comment 3: One area where the Introduction could be improved is in the organisation and flow of the text. The paper jumps from discussing the importance of system analysis and design to discussing the traditional and object-oriented modeling approaches without a clear transition. Restructuring the text to have a clearer flow and organization would make it easier for readers to follow and understand the arguments being presented. In addition, include the research question and at least the objective of the study statements in the introduction.
Comment 4: Add one paragraph/bullet point at the end of the introduction; what you intend to do in this research and link them to respective section(s) of the manuscript. (contribution/s)
Comment 5: In Figure 14, the alignment algorithm's flowchart is unclear and not necessarily present.
Comment 6: Some figures without names/titles, please check all the figures.
Comment 7: Add Literature review section.
Comment 8: The conclusion needs to be rewritten, make it shorter and more precise.
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.