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 March 28th, 2023 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on May 22nd, 2023.
  • The first revision was submitted on November 3rd, 2023 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on November 26th, 2023.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Nov 26, 2023 · Academic Editor

Accept

The reviewer positively assessed the article and therefore I can recommend it for acceptance and publication.

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

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Thanks for all the corrections. I am fine with the extent of the changes you have made to the manuscript and have properly responded to the comments from the previous review. Overall, the quality of the article has increased. However, I suggest listing Github URLs to model implementations such as https://github.com/ethanhezhao/MetaLDA/, https://github.com/AmFamMLTeam/hltm_welda, etc. as references instead of having them in text.

Experimental design

No Comments

Validity of the findings

No Comments

Additional comments

The authors incorporated all suggestions. Thus, I suggest to accept the article for publication.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· May 22, 2023 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

The reviewers raised a number of problems that need to be addressed in a new version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The paper has some shortcomings:

(1) The maniuscript text is often vague and long-winded. Please proofread the article and make it more clear and continues.
(2) In several instances regarding word embedding, I also suggested to provide more relevant discussion and recent literature.
(3) Please recent literature references ( 2022-2023).

Experimental design

The paper has following shortcomings in regards to mthodology and data analyses:
(1) Proposed and existing models are not decsribe in tabular and graphical form.
(2) It looks proposed model is computationally expensive than existing models.

Validity of the findings

It looks proposed model is computationally expensive than existing models, therefore it is recommended that:
(1) At least one more dataset should be utilized to its full extent for validity of the proposed scheme.
(2) Please provide the quantitative comparison of proposed work with the existing work.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

a) The language of this article is professional, clear and technical.
b) The introduction and background part have elaborated the gap and problem this work aiming to solve. Related literatures or prior works have been reviewed in introduction part.
c) The structure of this article is identical to the requirement of acceptable format. Figures in this article also support the corresponding content. However, in my option, all figures should be pictured by Orgin.
d) All the results in this article and supplementary materials can support the hypotheses or problem definition in this article.
e) Symbol definitions are clear and relevant.

Experimental design

a) This article is in accordance with the Aims and Scope of the journal.
b) Question definition and gap between prior works and this article is clear and the following content also discuss the pathway to fill this gap.
c) The experimental design basically conforms the ethical standard.
d) Methods introduction or discussion is clear.

Validity of the findings

a) The novelty of this article is acceptable. It really solves the problem mentioned in introduction and this problem is actually meaningful in the real world. Results data and discussion are sufficient.
b) The conclusion part is well stated and summarize the whole content in the article.

Additional comments

Generally speaking, it is an interesting work. The problem it solves seems to be minor but actually improve the related researches. By reviewing this paper, I think authors devote themselves to solve this problem step by step. However, all the figures in this paper need to be repictured.

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.