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.
Thanks for addressing the reviewer's comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jyotismita Chaki, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No problem. It's better.
No problem. It's better.
No problem. It's better.
Read the original and returned content, as well as the code. Receivable, it's a very nice behavior to be able to disclose the code, I hope it stays.
Dear author,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to our journal. The paper has certain novelty and advantages for this field research work. It presents a new method for ophthalmic disease classification, called ED_Net. This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest. Therefore, we believe that your paper requires “accept” at this point.
In conclusion, we believe that your has the potential to make a good contribution to our journal. We appreciate your hard work and look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
no comment
no comment
no comment
Hi,
Kindly improve the quality based on reviewers comments.
rather or relatively good
rather or relatively good
rather or relatively good
The authors propose a method for classifying diseases, and we found that the paper is characterized by the following points by reading the whole paper:
(1) The overall logic of the paper is strong, and there are more comparison experiments. First, experiments are compared with some classical algorithms, such as Vgg16, Resnet50, Densenet121, ResNext_34×4d-50, ShuffleNetV2, Mobilenetv3_large; and after that experiments are compared with some very advanced algorithms, such as Conformer, the RepMLP_B224, RepVGG_D2se, ConvMixer, Hornet-L-GF. It is very much appreciated because the algorithms are stated very accurately, for example, Mobilenetv3 is directly written as Mobilenetv3_large which is a very rigorous academic habit.
(2) The authors optimized on Xception and proposed ED_Xception model, is it reasonable to use "ED_Xception model"? Is it reasonable to use "ED_Xception model"? Should it be changed to "ED_Xception module"?
(3) Figure 6: I feel that the quality of the drawing needs to be improved.
(4)Suggested revision and acceptance.
Dear author,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to our journal. I have carefully reviewed your paper and would like to provide you with some feedback on my findings. The paper presents a new method for ophthalmic disease classification, called ED_Net. It is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areas, and the findings are of considerable interest. A few minor revisions are list below. Therefore, I believe that your paper requires “minor revisions” at this point.
1. Abstract: While the abstract provides a brief overview of the study, it does not adequately summarize the main findings of the paper. We suggest that you revise the abstract to provide a clearer summary of your results.
2. Introduction: The introduction section does not provide sufficient background information or context to help readers understand the significance of your research. I suggest that you consider adding more detail to help readers better understand the importance of your work.
3.Clarity and Accuracy: I noticed the figures were unclear. For example, it is not clear that βin Figure 6. Please review the manuscript carefully and make the necessary corrections to ensure that your study’s presentation is clear.
4. Formatting issues: The list of Equation is not on our style. It is close but not completely correct. Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is prepared and formatted.
5.References: There were some minor issues with the references. Please check the references carefully and make the necessary corrections. For example, reference in lines 32 and 33.
6.Future Research: The manuscript does not provide any direction no future research or the next steps following this study’s completion. Please consider providing some guidance in this area.
No comment
It remains unclear what the potential value of your study is. I suggest that you articulate this aspect more clearly and persuasively in the manuscript.
Methodology and Organization: The methodology is not presented in sufficient detail, and the organization could be improved to enhance the readability and clarity of the paper.
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.