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 you for addressing the reviewers' comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Hi,
you are requested to respond to each and every comment of the expert review.
/Khursheed
**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 article is written in clear English and the text is technically correct.
The article includes sufficient literature.
The structure of the article conforms to the acceptable format.
The submission is ‘self-contained,’ and includes relevant results.
Formal results include clear definitions of all terms.
The research is within Aims and Scope of the journal.
The submission clearly defines the research question.
The investigation has been conducted rigorously and to a high technical standard.
Methods are described with sufficient information.
The novelty of the recearch is stated.
The data on which the conclusions are based are provided. The data are robust and statistically sound.
The conclusions are a appropriately stated.
In Abstract and Conclusions you should give more detail about the obtained results.
You should specify the accuracy and mention practical application of you recearch In Abstract and Conclusions.
In Conclusions you should state the advantages of you approach in a comparison to the existing approaches.
What are the advantages of the proposed algorithms?
State clearly the novelty of your research in Conclusions.
.
.
.
The article is well written; however, it requires some minor revisions.
The figures and tables in the manuscript have been checked.
Revisions
Line 9-10, on page 3, please cite a couple recent studies which have used the technique.
Line 10, pg 3, did the authors mean “equivalent classes”, instead of “equivalence”.
Rephrase Line 27, pg 17. It is an important point, so rephrase such that it is easier to understand.
While only SVC and KNN algorithms have been tried in the experimental analysis section, I am wondering if it is possible for the authors to try a DLNN algorithm and XGBoost/CatBoost perhaps. That will strengthen the study in my opinion. XGBoost’s feature importance technique could also be used to provide comparison with the proposed method.
Figure 1 X axes in both the figures need to be renamed.
Correct the figure 2 caption please.
Figure 3 caption needs correction as well. Figure 5 X axis needs to be relabeled with full text.
Suggestion to convert Box 1 Algorithm 1 to a figure with a flowchart.
Overall the study is strong, but a bit more comparison to the existing feature importance techniques will make it even more strong.
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.