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 reviewer's suggestion, I would recommend this paper for consideration for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Claudio Ardagna, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The quality of the paper has been significantly improved in this revision of the submission.
The scientific article presents originality, and the methods used are adequately described.
The presentation of the results is understandable, and the graphic display is satisfactory.
I believe it is ready for publication after minor corrections in this version.
Statistical analysis is to be included to show the novelty of the paper. Further, include comparative analysis using visual aids to show the performance of the proposed approach.
This paper carries some interesting ideas, and their results are sound. Besides, the quality of the revised version of this submission has been improved according to reviewers’ comments. However, there are still some points that need to be improved.
I recommend the authors to make a complete statistical analysis and to include a series of indicators and tests such as Kurtosis, probabilities, standard deviation, etc. Besides, the number of observations taken in the sample, sampling mechanism and controls, should be well described.
It is important that the authors should present the correlation matrix and the covariance matrix. In addition, the authors should explain their dataset and results obtained via a visualization analysis.
I suggest the authors to deal with the above-mentioned comments for improving even more your paper. Therefore, I recommend to accept this submission after minor modifications.
no comment
no comment
no comment
Revise the manuscript as per the reviewers' comments.
[# 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/ #]
The manuscript addresses a topic of extreme relevance to public health and economic. Totally, the present article is well-established and the subject is interesting, but some major revision should be considered. For example, the references are not cited properly, and there are relatively few references from the past three years. There are several typos and errors in the current manuscript, which need to be carefully checked and corrected.
To highlight the main contribution of the proposed study, a comparison on the numerical results of related works and the authors' method should be provided. I suggest that the authors should compare the results of the present work with some similar studies which have been done in the recent three years. Besides, much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the results, which are not enough in the current manuscript.
The scientific contribution of the current paper is doubtful. There is neither discussion nor demonstration on the advantage/innovation points of the proposed approach over other existed methods in the related works. The main contributions of this paper should be clarified by comparing with the existing results. Moreover, it is better to conduct more analysis and comparison on the correlation of respective numerical results.
I recommend the authors to perform a more detailed literature review, and position their paper compared to other related works in the literature. The authors should provide a (numerical) comparison between the proposed approach and the other well-known methods. Besides, the authors should also provide more detail descriptions for the implementation of the proposed approach.
Very important
Good
Very important
no comment.
no comment.
1. How do you define the "Training set to train the model and a validation the model "? Did you run any simulations to confirm the set up?
2. How do you justify the high SE (7.116) for theta1.hat in Table 1?
1. Add a sentence or two about your findings in the abstract.
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.