Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on July 19th, 2023 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on October 18th, 2023.
  • The first revision was submitted on November 1st, 2023 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on November 20th, 2023 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on November 20th, 2023.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· Nov 20, 2023 · Academic Editor

Accept

Congratulations!

This is an important scholarly work, and we appreciate your patience throughout the review process. Please let us know if you have any questions for us.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Stefan Wagner, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Version 0.2

· Nov 17, 2023 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear Author(s),

Our reviewers and I agree that your manuscript is publishable with minor corrections.

I appreciate your patience in this regard, and I'll be looking forward to the next version.

Thanks for your patience.

Kumer

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Well written with necessary literature review/references. Sufficient mathematical proof, analysis, real life data sets are presented. Overall, it's going to be a good new article. I appreciate, authors have been graciously provided their responses to my first review.

Experimental design

Rigorous investigation performed with comparative analysis of the mode with PA, DBH, Poisson etc. Model selection and goodness of fit criteria satisfactory. Sufficient graphical representation and analysis given with explanation.

Validity of the findings

Conclusion, interpretations, theoretical proofs, and tabulated results have been checked and satisfactory.

Additional comments

Line 144 and 145: Please correct the alignment and it should be in one line.
Line 90: It's better to write the pmf in same mathematical form as like line 83.
Figure 3: In all PPP plots, can you use different color and show data values as dots?

Overall, I appreciate the hard work you put into this novel article. Thanks again to both of the authors for the prompt responses to the first revision.

Once you address these few things above, it can be recommended to publish.

·

Basic reporting

pass

Experimental design

pass

Validity of the findings

pass

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Oct 18, 2023 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

I agree with Reviewer #1 and the authors must address the questions related to the fundamental condition that a probability mass function (pmf) must satisfy. The remaining findings must be adjusted based on the modified pmf.

**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.

**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

not satisfied

Experimental design

not a valid methodology and design

Validity of the findings

Fundamental theoretical flaws which nullify all findings and propositions.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

·

Basic reporting

The manuscript is well written and well organized. The derivations of the estimates are correct.

Experimental design

The proposed model was compared with Poisson Ailamujia (PA), discrete Burr Hatke
(DBH), discrete inverted Topp-Leone (DITL), discrete moment exponential (DME), and Poisson
distributions.

Validity of the findings

Different model selection and goodness-of-fit criteria, Log-likelihood (L), Akaike information criteria (AIC), Bayesian information criteria (BIC), and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests are used to compare the fitted models.

Additional comments

Overall, this is an excellent article.

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.