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.
According to the comments of reviewers, after comprehensive consideration, it is decided to accept it.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sedat Akleylek, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
None
None
None
I recommend the acceptance.
This research paper is fully interesting and very well described
good
Excellent
The revised manuscript has addressed all my concerns and can be accepted.
No more comments.
No more comments.
Please revise the paper according to the reviewer's comments.
**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:** 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 that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** PeerJ staff have identified that the English language needs to be improved. When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). – PeerJ Staff
Please see additional comments.
Please see additional comments.
Please see additional comments.
This paper deals with an exciting topic. The article has been read carefully, and some minor issues have been highlighted in order to be considered by the author(s).
#1 What is the motivation of this paper?
#2 What is the contribution and novelty of this paper?
#3 What is the advantage of this paper?
#4 Which evaluation metrics did you used for comparison?
#5 Some paper would be reflected in the related work such as “https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9580824”, “https://www.hindawi.com/journals/js/2022/4390413/”, “https://search.ieice.org/bin/summary.php?id=e105-d_1_170”, “https://www.hindawi.com/journals/js/2021/6473833/”, “https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925231222008219”, “https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9579036”, “https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11042-022-12941-w”, “https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10046665”, “https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167404822004539”, “https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10489-022-03313-w”.
**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.
#6 Meaning of the symbols used can be explained clearly.
#7 The limitation of the proposed work can be discussed.
This research paper is fully interesting and very well described. However, certain aspects of the paper's technicality and presentation prevent me from accepting the paper, and I am marking it as "Major revisions requested". Please consider the following remarks to improve your article.
The discussions should highlight why the proposed method is providing good results
The discussions should highlight why the proposed method is providing good results
General Comments
This research paper is fully interesting and very well described. However, certain aspects of the paper's technicality and presentation prevent me from accepting the paper, and I am marking it as "Major revisions requested". Please consider the following remarks to improve your article.
1- The introduction section needs to highlight the motivation contribution of the research.
2- Write general algorithm of the proposed work in steps format so that other can replicate the study.
3- Please separate the result and discussion session. The discussions should highlight why the proposed method is providing good results.
4- I would like authors to present the limitations of the current methods (if any) and possible directions for future research.
5- The discussions should highlight why the proposed method is providing good results.
1.The motivation of introducing the adversarial strength enhance model should be presented in more detail.
2.The authors are suggested to briefly summarize the main contributions of this paper at the end of Introduction.
3.When writing a paper, the author needs to pay more attention to the grammar rules, and please correct the grammatical errors in this manuscript.
4.It will be helpful to refer to the following papers.
Yang J, Zhang Z, Xiao S, et al. Efficient data-driven behavior identification based on vision transformers for human activity understanding[J]. Neurocomputing, 2023, 530: 104-115.
He J, Wen J, Xiao S, et al. Multi-AUV Inspection for Process Monitoring of Underwater Oil Transportation[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2023, 10(3): 828-830.
Yang J, Cheng C, Xiao S, et al. High Fidelity Face-Swapping With Style ConvTransformer and Latent Space Selection[J]. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 2023.
**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.
1.The authors should add at least two existing datasets to the experiment.
2.The authors should add at least two new classification networks for experiments, not just in AlexNet, VggNet, ResNet.
3.The authors need to add some visual experimental results in this manuscript.
In this paper, the authors propose a model designs that enhance adversarial strength with incorporating feature denoising blocks. And they tested the proposed approach on the ImageNet and CIFAR-10 datasets. The result shows a high accuracy. However, some shortcomings in this manuscript.
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.