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.
Dear authors, we are pleased to verify that you meet the reviewer's valuable feedback to improve your research.
Thank you for considering PeerJ Computer Science and submitting your work.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no more comment
no more comment
no more comment
no more comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
The reviews suggested were not met, and for that reason, we suggest that you address them, point by point, to clarify for the reviewers and Editorial staff.
Please reflect in the response letter your modifications, that should address the review and editorial comments. Furthermore, any corrections or clarifications provided in the letter should be incorporated into the manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
If the author has not revised his paper carefully and just answered my question then please don't send me this paper again for review. There is still a need for some revisions to your paper. the comments below are:
1. • The abstract is too generic, I suggest to rewrite it to emphasize crucial aspects treated in the paper and to improve quality.
2. The literature reviews in this paper appear to be old, and it's essential to enhance and update the literature reviews to align with the current state-of-the-art methods in the field of object detection. Additionally, it would be beneficial to include recent studies and papers that are based on the latest advancements in object detection.
3 how proposed algorithms/approaches can be used to overcome this.
4 It's better to highlight the research gap clearly in the introduction.
5 It's better to highlight the novelty of your study in the introduction.
6 it is better to demonstrate the methodology in the figure to be more clear.
need improvement
need improvement
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
Dear authors,
The reviews suggested were not met, and for that reason, we suggest that you address them, point by point, to clarify for the reviewers and Editorial staff.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful.
the author should answer my question again and carefully then send me again,
i never accepted the paper in current version
the author just answered a question and didn't revise the paper
the author should answer my question again and carefully then send me again,
i never accepted the paper in current version
the author just answered a question and didn't revise the paper
the author should answer my question again and carefully then send me again,
i never accepted the paper in current version
the author just answered a question and didn't revise the paper
the author should answer my question again and carefully then send me again,
i never accepted the paper in current version
the author just answered a question and didn't revise the paper
no comment
no comment
no comment
The reviewers clearly present the concerns expressed in the manuscript. As mentioned, it is recommended that this is reviewed in terms of the quality of the writing, the formulation and discussion of the main results, and also the updating and comparison of results and references.
Furthermore, given the evolution of YOLO methods (already in version 8), works presented in lower versions (which typically have lower performance), the arguments for using YOLO v5 will have to be well justified.
Reviewers 1 & 2 have suggested that you cite specific references. You are welcome to add it/them if you believe they are relevant. However, you are not required to include these citations, and if you do not include them, this will not influence my decision.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful.
**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 Academic Editor 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
yes
yes
yes
find the attached pdf to revised the your paper accordingly
Minor editing of English language required.
Details of the experimental part should be added.
Mistakes in findings should be corrected.
Please modify the manuscript according to the comments and recommendations in the attached file.
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.