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. I have reviewed the updated manuscript and believe the authors have effectively incorporated the suggestions. This version does not need to be sent to the reviewers. The manuscript is now ready for publication as a result of this evaluation.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please check the comments from the two reviewers and revise the manuscript accordingly, especially to address the following:
- Improve the list of references as suggested by Reviewer 1.
- Discuss the contributions of the core modules as suggested by Reviewer 2.
OK, no further comments.
The revised version has been improved. The authors have fixed the errors in the equations and addressed other questions of mine about the experiments.
OK, no further comments.
I am happy that the authors have addressed all of my concerns. One more additional and very minor comment is that the list of references may need to be improved as some items are on arXiv but their URLs or IDs are not included.
The quality of presentation and language is good, and I have no further comments.
The experiment design sounds good. The study aligns with the aims and scope of the journal.
The revision is improved, and the authors have already included information about the datasets, experimental settings, and evaluation metrics, as suggested in my previous report. A statistical test has been conducted as well.
The findings are valid and useful. I have no further comments.
Basically, the authors have already addressed all of my comments in the previous report. I still have one more comment: it is not very clear about the contributions of the core modules, i.e., Kg-Plug and UMI, to the final performance of the system. Which one is more important than the other? Do we need to include both? It would be very interesting and useful if an ablation study about this matter could be conducted. However, if this is difficult, then a discussion should be sufficient, as the performance of the proposed system is already good.
Please revise your manuscript to address the comments from the two reviewers, especially to add more details about the datasets and the evaluation metrics, perform a statistical test, and provide some missing information about the equations and the experiments.
**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 content that is presented is understandable, and the language that is used in the manuscript is good.
The figures are of a high quality, and detailed descriptions are provided for each one.
The article provides a sufficient amount of background information as well as an introduction to demonstrate how the work fits into the larger field of knowledge. The appropriate references are provided for any prior literature that is applicable.
The article clearly defines the research question, and the experiments sound good.
However, there are a few points that need to be explained in greater detail:
- What does Emb stand for in Equation (2)?
- After Equation (5), there is a typo; it should be "model" not "mode".
- What kind of training did the model receive? When the model is being trained, what hyperparameters are being used? What about the values that the authors have chosen for those hyperparameters?
- How about the computing platform that was used to train the model and/or carry out the experiments?
The findings presented in the manuscript have been verified by the results of the experiments. The conclusions are understandable and provide an answer to the original research question.
This manuscript requires a major revision in order to take into account the comments above.
- In the manuscript, the authors have utilized language that is easy to understand and relatively specific.
- The main technical content can be understood easily.
- A good visual support is offered by the figures included in the manuscript. The resolution of the figures is high enough that readers will be able to make out the essential particulars. The descriptions and labels of each figure are written in an understandable and comprehensive manner.
- The authors have provided nearly all of the results that are relevant to their hypothesis in their presentation. This indicates that the subject has been discussed in great detail. Nevertheless, the quality of the manuscript will be elevated if the authors add additional specifics, as will be discussed in the Additional comments that follow.
- The study aligns with the aims and scope of the journal.
- The methodology for the experiment is adequate. On the other hand, as will be pointed out below, additional information, such as that regarding the datasets, should to be included.
- Both the code and the data were provided by the authors. Those who want to extend this research or reproduce the results that have been reported would find this to be helpful.
- In my opinion, the findings of this research can be applied in the real world.
- The conclusions presented in the manuscript are articulated clearly and can be connected to the primary research question.
- Because the primary contributions made by this research are not discussed in sufficient detail in the manuscript, the authors should provide a summary of those contributions.
- Although the authors have included in the manuscript the sources of the datasets that were used in the experiments that they conducted, it would be beneficial if more information about those datasets was provided.
- Because BLEU and Entity F1 are not typical metrics, the authors should provide additional information regarding both of these metrics.
- The authors should conduct a statistical test in order to demonstrate that the performance of their proposed method is better than that of other methods.
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.