Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on July 27th, 2023 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on August 9th, 2023.
  • The first revision was submitted on August 22nd, 2023 and was reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 28th, 2023.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Aug 28, 2023 · Academic Editor

Accept

Necessary revisions have been made in line with the referee's suggestions.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Claudio Ardagna, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

it is done

Experimental design

It is done

Validity of the findings

It is done

Additional comments

Accepted

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Its done, the revised version of the paper looks good

Experimental design

Its done, the revised version of the paper looks good

Validity of the findings

Its done, the revised version of the paper looks good

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

I appreciate the author's effort to improve the article. The article is acceptable as it is.

Experimental design

I appreciate the author's effort to improve the article. The article is acceptable as it is.

Validity of the findings

I appreciate the author's effort to improve the article. The article is acceptable as it is.

Additional comments

I appreciate the author's effort to improve the article. The article is acceptable as it is.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Aug 9, 2023 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

The author should make the necessary revisions to the article in order to improve its overall quality, clarity, and impact. Specifically, they should focus on:

- Strengthening the introduction by emphasizing the contributions and motivation behind the work.

- Expanding on the training and testing phases of each dataset to enhance reproducibility.

- Introducing a dedicated "Limitations and Future Work" section in the conclusion to address study limitations and suggest potential future research directions.

- Incorporating recent references.

- Clearly highlighting the novelty and contributions of the proposed method, particularly in the introduction.

- Clarifying the motivation behind the paper to engage readers effectively.

- Explicitly addressing the study's limitations to provide a comprehensive context for interpreting the results.

**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial 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.

**Language 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). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

• The article should be checked for grammar.
• The contributions of the work given in the introduction to this paper can be improved.
• Some tables and figures in the “Experimental Analysis and Discussions” section need more explanations and discussions.
• Add more details about each dataset's training and testing phases.
• Limitations and future work are missing in the last section: “Conclusion”. Please add these two parts to this section.
• It will be much better to include some references published from 2021 to the present.

Experimental design

The design is good. There are some good explanations showing the parameters.

Validity of the findings

Tables and figures are given in appropriate logical order.

Additional comments

• The article should be checked for grammar.
• The contributions of the work given in the introduction to this paper can be improved.
• Some tables and figures in the “Experimental Analysis and Discussions” section need more explanations and discussions.
• Add more details about each dataset's training and testing phases.
• Limitations and future work are missing in the last section: “Conclusion”. Please add these two parts to this section.
• It will be much better to include some references published from 2021 to the present.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The author suggested a hybrid approach to classify the medical and artificial datasets.
In the paper:
“In the study, the location of the cluster centers belonging to the classes was taken into account. While it is ensured that all in-class observations are gathered around the cluster center, it is also aimed to move the cluster centers of different classes away from each other. A mathematical model is proposed that can determine these weights.”

Experimental design

There are two classes datasets in the simulations.

Validity of the findings

No comment

Additional comments

a) The English of this paper should be polished.
b) Some points in Figure 1 should be corrected.
c) Did authors use real-time data?
d) Please add more discussion.
e) Please give an example showing the proposed system work.
f) the caption of figure10 should be checked

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

The manuscript has been organized well. The language of the manuscript is clear. The required literature summary and material and methods have been presented appropriately. I found the paper to be somewhat interesting. However, the below issues should be addressed if the authors would like to pursuit its publication.
1. The name of the used open-access database should be specified in the abstract section.
2. First, the paper's contribution to expert and intelligent systems should be clearly outlined. The novelty of the proposed method should be highlighted. The authors should clarify the paper's contributions in the introduction section.
3. In the introduction, the motivation of the paper needs to be articulated far more clearly.
4. Furthermore, where are the limitations of your study? Clarifying the limitations of a study allows the readers to understand better under which conditions the results should be interpreted.

Experimental design

To validate the proposed models, the authors have made some experiments. The structures are good.

Validity of the findings

See above.

Additional comments

See above.

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.