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.
I am pleased to inform you that your work has now been accepted for publication in PeerJ Computer Science.
Please be advised that you are not permitted to add or remove authors or references post-acceptance, regardless of the reviewers' request(s).
Thank you for submitting your work to this journal. On behalf of the Editors of PeerJ Computer Science, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal.
With kind regards,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sedat Akleylek, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
The manuscript has been revised as per the reviewer's suggestions and it can be considered for publication.
-
-
-
no comment
no comment
no comment
The paper is well revised. I accept this paper
I have received reviews of your manuscript from scholars who are experts on the cited topic. They find the topic very interesting; however, several concerns must be addressed regarding experimental results, contributions, and comparisons with current approaches. These issues require a major revision. Please refer to the reviewers’ comments listed at the end of this letter, and you will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision. Please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point that is being raised when you submit your revised manuscript.
Thank you for considering PeerJ Computer Science for the publication of your research.
With kind regards,
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial 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 [email protected] 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
The basic reporting of the manuscript is clear. The English language used is clear and the manuscript is quite easy to follow. The number of references used in the study is not enough. Mainly, Research gaps are missing in this manuscript. There is no analysis of the limitations of any of the previous work. In most cases, there is not even a summary, just a name-check, and reference. It is suggested to add greater depth to the analysis in the Related Work section and refer to recent articles.
• The experimental setup seems good. The proposed method is not compared with the state-of-the-art/related works in terms of experimentation,results, and suitability.
• It looks like some significant findings were observed. However, the findings can be evaluated after clarifying the models.
In my view, the manuscript requires a major revision before it can be published in a journal.
The innovation and contribution of the research are not clear.
no comment.
no comment
The innovation of the research should be mentioned clearly in the abstract section.
The grammatical and typo errors should be corrected.
The evaluation must be performed using more datasets.
The performance of the proposed method should be compared with more related techniques.
What are the limitations of the existing methods? How these limitations are solved by the proposed method?
All the variables in the equations must be defined.
More recent related works must be reviewed.
What are the limitations and future work of the proposed method.
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.