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.
Based on the reviewers' comments, the manuscript can be accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Stefan Wagner, a PeerJ Computer Science Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have addressed the majority of the key comments raised during the initial review process and the revisions made have improved the quality of the manuscript. I recommend that the paper be accepted for publication.
Ok
Ok
No Comment
-
-
-
Based on reviewers' comments the manuscript needs revisions.
[# 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/ #]
- English text needs revision. It is suggested that the author use tools such as Grammarly to check grammatical mistakes.
- The paper's contribution needs to be stated more clearly.
- The Materials & Methods section could benefit from an increase in references to reliable sources.
- Authors should compare their work in detail with related work.
- Please also add future work and research opportunities to the Conclusion.
Need improvement
---
---
Dear author, please consider the following comments to improve your paper
1- The abstract of this paper does not express the contribution of the work clearly. The abstract text must include the methods used in a new way. The result and comparison part needs to be improved.
2- I suggest inserting complementary information about your idea in the introduction section and categorizing the whole of the work.
3- Please correct the typography errors.
4- The Section titled Materials and Methods contains a few of the related references.
5- There is a loss of useful information about the workflow of your idea before the Result Section.
no comment
no comment
no comment
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.