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.
Dear Authors,
Your manuscript has been accepted for publication in PEERJ Computer Science. The comments of the reviewers who evaluated your manuscript are included in this letter. I ask that you make minor changes to your manuscript based on those comments, before uploading final files.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jyotismita Chaki, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits (including those noted by Reviewer 1 and address these while in proof stage.
I would like to thank the authors for addressing my comments satisfactorily. I have some minor suggestions:
Line 29. "...a comparison ratio of 2x." please replace 'x' with 'times' or 'twice' or something like that.
Line 54. Please replace "In agriculture, In agriculture, ANN can be used..." with "In agriculture, ANN was utilized...".
Please mention the limitations of your method in the Conclusion section.
Please carefully proofread the manuscript.
Thank you
no comment
no comment
The figure quality and their font size can be further improved. Please ensure a minimum resolution of 300 dpi for your figures.
The paper was not sufficiently improved considering my previous comments and suggestions. The quality of the paper is too low for a journal publication.
The paper was not sufficiently improved considering my previous comments and suggestions. The quality of the paper is too low for a journal publication.
The paper was not sufficiently improved considering my previous comments and suggestions. The quality of the paper is too low for a journal publication.
The paper was not sufficiently improved considering my previous comments and suggestions. The quality of the paper is too low for a journal publication.
Dear Authors,
Your paper has been reviewed and some minor revisions are needed before it can be accepted for publication. In order to improve your manuscript, please consider the following suggestions:
1. Enhance the highlighting of your main contribution to the paper.
2. Improve the quality of the figures used in your paper.
3. Correct any typos or errors that may have been overlooked.
We appreciate your efforts and look forward to reviewing the revised version of your manuscript.
[# 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) #]
I would like to thank the authors for addressing my comments.
Please remove Table 1 because it does not add any information and it is well-known. And in line 190 please remove the sentence where it says: "Table 1 shows the term confusion matrix."
Line 188. Please remove "in the flowchart". Please also carefully check the Figure order and their description.
Please carefully check the format/style of the references, e.g., authors last names followed by abbreviated first names, volume numbers, etc.
Please carefully proofread the manuscript.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The quality of the paper is still low. I suggest to better highlight the main contributions of the work as well as the main results.
The quality of the figures is still very low. Some figures have a low resolution, not sufficient for a journal publication.
No comment
No comment
Dear Authors,
Your manuscript has been revised. According to the reviewers' comments, it needs major revisions before being considered for publication in this journal. You must improve both the description of your contribution and the description of the proposed approach. Especially the experiments need to be more detailed so the reader can replicate them.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# 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/ #]
Reviewer’s Report on the manuscript entitled:
Block-based Compressive Sensing in Deep learning using Alexnet for vegetable classification
The authors proposed a vegetable classification model that uses the CNN Alexnet model and compressive sensing to reduce computing time and save storage space. They compared the performance of their method with some other methods and showed their methods have better classification performance. The manuscript is interesting, but the presentation can be improved. Please see below my comments.
The literature review can be further improved by including some most recent articles:
Line 51. Please define ANN first and provide some references that shows its application for classification. For example, the following article that uses ANN for crop disease could be added here as an application: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14051239
Line 55. Please define VGG. All the abbreviations must be defined the first time they appear. Also, please here add the following article that compares VGG with ResNet architectures for image classification: https://doi.org/10.3390/s21238083
The authors of the article above use techniques, such as early stopping to improve the computational efficiency and reduce over-fitting issues. Did you use such techniques in your proposed method? Either way, please discuss this at the end of the manuscript.
Line 82. Please define DCNN.
The following article also shows the applications of different deep learning architectures for vegetation image classification that can be added in the Introduction: https://doi.org/10.3390/signals3030031
Line 99. Please use bullet points to highlight the main contributions of this research.
Thank you for your contribution.
Regards,
Lines 108, 114, etc. please don’t use the letter x for multiplication. Please use the multiplication symbol instead. In latex it is “\times” that will create x.
Lines 138-173. Please add a flowchart showing these steps to help reader better understand your approach.
Table 1. It is “Negative” not “Negatif” and “Positive” not “Positif”.
'no comment'
Table 6 is in fact Table 5. Please check and correct the numbering.
Figures 3 and 4. Please insert the x-axis and y-axis labels.
Figure 5 has a very poor resolution. Please note that the resolution of all images should be at least 300 dpi.
Line 233. Please also mention the limitations of your method.
The paper presents an approach for vegetable classification using deep learning. The topics of the paper are interesting. However, the quality of the work is overall low and not suitable for publication in the present form. More in detail:
1) The main contributions of the paper are not clear. The novelties of the paper are not clearly highlighted, especially with respect to similar works on the topic.
2) The quality of the results and the analysis of the results is not sufficient for a journal publication in the present form.
3) The quality of the figures should be improved.
4) The literature review does not provide a sufficient overview on the topic.
The description of the approach should be improved. It would be impossible for the reader to replicate the experiments.
The impact and the novelties of the work are not clearly addressed throughout the manuscript.
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.