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.
Thank the authors for their efforts to improve the work. Based on the comments of the reviewer and to the best of my knowledge, I believe the work has addressed the concerns proposed by the reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jyotismita Chaki, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
my concerns have been answered
no comment
no comment
The structure of the work is clear. However, the reviewers also pointed out that some details should be added and the writing should be double-checked and improved. Please revise the article accordingly.
**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.
The general structure of this paper is clear. Some issues are expected to be checked.
(1) The title of table 2 is confused, seems that the title does not fit to the content in Table 2.
(2) In Table 2, please clarify how does the value in the 'Improve' column calculated, which baseline is compared to GSARec?
(3) All the upper quotation marks are displayed as the lower quotation marks.
(4) some punctuations are missed between line 111 to 117. Other typos and formats should be carefully checked.
(1) Section 1.7 discusses λ and β in the formulas. Please provide additional experimental details to show how these parameters are determined.
(2) Section 1.8.4 should provide information about the hardware and software environment used for conducting the experiments, including any specific configurations or settings.
While the article introduces intriguing viewpoints and research outcomes, there is still potential for enhancement in terms of its contributions. Please emphasize the uniqueness and significance of this research more explicitly.
Needs improvements in writing and composing, literature, resutls
Methods described sufficient detail and information
data and experiments on it are valid
• Same citition in 0.2 Sequential recommendation (Rendle et al., 2010)
• Text and the refrences used in section 0.2 are irrelevant to this study, especially the 2nd paragraph as authors neither used Transformers in this study nor this study has any linked with Transformers. This should be removed.
• Typos on 158 line. 125, 171.,
• Use equation numbers
• All the equations are very difficult to understand. Terms in these equations are not well defined with respect to subject discuss in this manuscript particularly equations of section 1.4 and 1.5.
• Figure 1 should be devided into two Figures or subparts (Firstinteraction graph convolutional layer and second the other part on right side) and captioned them accordingly.
• How the 5th column (destiny) calculated? And what is its purpose…also provide its link to download and use for future research.
• Evaluation matrices need more explaination. How these metrics can be calculated and how these are useful for comparison of different mdoels.
• Table 2 should appear before the figure 2 as Table has been citing before the figure 2.
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.