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 authors accurately revised the manuscript as reported by reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Daniel S. Katz, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
References have been updated as requested.
English writing is better as well.
no comment
no comment
Please take into account the reviewers' comments.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
Refer to additional comments.
Refer to additional comments.
Refer to additional comments.
1. The abstract is too large. Needs to be precise.
2. A contribution subsection should be included after the introduction section to mention the researchers' contributions in bullet points.
3. The organization of the paper is missing.
4. A literature table or related work table must be included. There should be a clear mention of the limitations of the existing scheme and what the researchers are targeting to achieve.
5. The courses are selected from 2014-2020. If the data is available till 2020 then it is ok. Otherwise, needs to update.
6. The results in numbers in percentages should be included in the abstract of the proposed and existing schemes.
7. References should be updated. 2022 and 2023 references should be added.
8. The paper is very hard to read. The authors need to revise the paper and clearly mention their contributions (e.g., objectives, performance measures etc).
All the idea is present, but the narration is not well accomplished.
Introduction:
The subject isn't supported by literature in the field, and the main questions to answer are not clear and explicit.
The author should be acquainted with someone in the area who is proficient in English.
The major problems are the acronymous which are not defined.
Examples: MLP; and GMF.
Nevertheless, the description is present with no objection.
No comment.
No comment.
This paper presents a deep learning approach to aid in the recommendation of the massive available teaching resources.
The contributions of the work should be more clear. Also, the questions that you try to solve are not clear.
English is consistent, although some improvements can be made.
There's a lack of background and context, to place your work among other contributions. I advise a section, after 1.Introduction, to add these references, so the structure should be updated.
No comment
No comment
1) The abstract could be more concise to the aim of the study. Should mention some results of the study.
2) Many acronyms are not defined in text, such as HR and others.
3) References range until 2021. An update is crucial.
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.