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 have addressed all of the reviewers' comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Claudio Ardagna, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please follow review comments.
**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.
**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
The article is in clear English. The text is technically correct. The article conforms to professional standards of courtesy and expression.
The article includes sufficient relevant literature.
The structure of the article conforms to an acceptable format. Figures are relevant to the content of the article.
The submission is ‘self-contained’.
Formal results include clear definitions.
The research is within Aims and Scope of the journal.
The research question is well defined, relevant .
The investigation has been conducted rigorously and to a high technical standard.
The methods are described with sufficient detail.
An novel a approach is proposed.
The examples include software validation and verification, accuracy.
The data on which the conclusions are based are provided and are statistically sound.
The conclusions are appropriately stated and connected to the original question investigated,
State clearly the advantage of the proposed approach in the Abstract.
State clearly the novelty of your approach in the Abstract.
Give priority to description of your novel approach and less attention to description of the problem itself in the Abstract.
State clearly in the Conclusion whether you have achieved your goal.
Give the obtained accuracy data in the Conclusion.
The “Abstract” Section is too long and should be re-written due to the difficult of catching the innovation point. It should be approx. 200-250 words
Some Equations in the paper are shown incompletely. To improve the readability of the paper, please explain each variable meaning.
Describe the value of hyperparameters used in experiments
Provide equation numbers for Precision, Sensitivity and F1 Score and all the equations clearly.
Provide mathematical explanations to find the parameters Prediction Time, Classification Error, Model Loss, Precision, Sensitivity and F1 score.
justify differentiating between binary and multiclass classification.
Interpretation of the model is needed. why it was selected, how it was selected?
grammar correction needed.
Proper captioning is needed in figure.
There are many spelling errors in the manuscript. A thoroughly spelling check is required in the revision.
following research article could be referenced in your article: https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11244096
Need to be improved
satisfactory.
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.