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 reviewers were happy with your changes. One reviewer identified some grammatical issues. Please look at those and address them in the final version that goes to production.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Claudio Ardagna, 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 English editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
All my concerns are addressed well.
It is already suitable.
It is also found to be ok.
1) A number of grammatical changes look incorrect to me:
The change of "passes" to "approve" on line 33 is incorrect.
The change of "In" to "According to" on line 112 is incorrect.
no comment
no comment
Two of the reviewers suggested minor revisions. I wanted to get one additional person to look at it, so there are three reviewers now. Because of this, there are some additional suggestions to improve the manuscript. Please address those as well as you can and/or provide strong justification on why they are not important.
**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.
The study is an interesting one. I have only a few suggestions.
1. Major contribution of the study should be highlighted.
2. Research gaps should be elaborated more.
3. Novelty of the study should be explained.
1. What were the strategies applied by the authors to tackle the data imbalance issue?
2. Comparison of the results with the SOTA studies in the domain may be incorporated.
1. The limitation of the study may be discussed.
The authors should cite some of the recent studies in the domain. Some of the studies listed below. The authors may not necessarily required to cite them.
1. Gaftandzhieva, S., Talukder, A., Gohain, N., Hussain, S., Theodorou, P., Salal, Y. K., & Doneva, R. (2022). Exploring online activities to predict the final grade of student. Mathematics, 10(20), 3758.
2. Hussain, S., Gaftandzhieva, S., Maniruzzaman, M., Doneva, R., & Muhsin, Z. F. (2021). Regression analysis of student academic performance using deep learning. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 783-798.
The manuscript improved a lot since the first review. Congratulations! However,
I still have a few remarks:
1. The reference style is inconsistent. Sometimes inline citations are formatted
entirely between brackets, sometimes only the year is in brackets. The
reference on line 119 is missing the year. Repeating the title of the work
and the location it was published is also not necessary (as done e.g. on line
112 or line 126).
2. The start of the sentence on line 135 is not grammatically correct.
3. It would be better to introduce the research question in the introduction.
4. The link on lines 185-186 is not well-formatted.
no comment
no comment
I consider that the observations have been results.
I consider that the observations have been results.
I consider that the observations have been results.
I don't have additional comments.
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.