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,
Thank you for the revision. The paper seems to be improved in the opinion of the reviewers. The paper is now ready to be published.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have revised the article based on previous comments. It is acceptable in current form.
The authors have revised the article based on previous comments. It is acceptable in current form.
no Comments
Satisfactory. Please see the comments.
Satisfactory. Please see the comments.
Satisfactory. Please see the comments.
I have completed the review of the revised manuscript. I am pleased to report that the authors have diligently addressed all the comments and suggestions provided during the initial review. After careful consideration, I believe that the revised manuscript is now in a condition that warrants acceptance for publication. The authors have effectively incorporated the recommended changes, and the overall quality of the manuscript has significantly improved.
I recommend moving forward with the acceptance of the manuscript, pending any final checks from the editorial team. If there are any additional steps required from my end or if you need further clarification on any aspect of the review, please feel free to let me know.
Dear authors,
Thank you for submitting your article. The reviewers’ comments are now available. Your article has not been recommended for publication in its current form. However, we encourage you to address the reviewers' concerns and criticisms; particularly regarding readability, quality, experimental design and validity, and resubmit your article once you have updated it accordingly.
When submitting the revised version of your article, it will be better to address the following:
1- The abstract should present some main points for the readers, such as the main contributions, the proposed method, the main problem, the obtained results, the benchmark tests and data, the comparative methods, etc. The contribution is not properly explained in an understandable way. The abstract section should be rewritten in order to clearly state the manuscript’s main focus.
2- The research gaps and contributions should be clearly summarized in the introduction section. Please evaluate how your study is different from others in the related section.
3- The values for the parameters of the algorithms selected for comparison are not given.
4- The paper lacks the running environment, including software and hardware. The analysis and configurations of experiments should be presented in detail for reproducibility. It is convenient for other researchers to redo your experiments and this makes your work easy to accept. A table with parameter settings for experimental results and analysis should be included in order to clearly describe them.
5- Clarifying the study’s limitations allows the readers to better understand under which conditions the results should be interpreted. A clear description of limitations of a study also shows that the researcher has a holistic understanding of his/her study. However, the authors fail to demonstrate this in their paper. The authors should clarify the pros and cons of the methods. What are the limitation(s) of the methodology adopted in this work? Please indicate practical advantages, and discuss research limitations.
6- Explanation of the equations should be checked. All variables should be written in italics as in the equations. Equations should be used with correct equation numbers within the text.
7- Please include future research directions.
8- Graphics and charts need more explanation.
9- The conclusion section is indicative, but it might be strengthened to highlight the importance and applicability of the work done with some more in-depth considerations, to summarize the findings, and to give readers a point of reference. Additional comments about the reached results should be included.
**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.
**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
Please see the detailed report.
Please see the detailed report.
Please see the detailed report.
This study constructs a text readability evaluation model based on TextCNN deep learning algorithm, and applies this model to college English teaching. SPSS22.0 statistical software is used to analyze the collected experimental data, which verifies the scientificity and effectiveness of this method in improving students' English reading ability. Although the results of this paper have excellent value, there are also some problems, some revisions needed to be revised to make sure that the manuscript can be accepted. The commonly problems are as follows:
Strengthen Conclusion Presentation: Articulate the conclusions more distinctly, aligning them with the study's objectives and the broader implications of the findings.
Emphasize Experimental Group Methodology: Provide a comprehensive breakdown of the approach employed by the experimental group concerning the text readability evaluation method based on deep learning.
Highlight Data Collection Strategy: Clarify the methodology used in collecting extensive reading materials from various sources to fortify the research's reliability. The question that needs to be answered is "How the english language corpus was curated" What are samples from that corpus.
The methodology section requires greater elaboration on the specific procedures employed, addressing potential methodological limitations, and providing a rationale for the chosen approach.
Elaborate on Improvement Metrics: Provide explicit metrics or parameters used to measure the improvement in students' reading levels to augment clarity.
Discuss Model Limitations: Address the limitations of the proposed deep learning model more comprehensively to provide a nuanced perspective. How can be the accuracy made better than 90%.
Please articulate the research objectives and formulate precise hypotheses that align with the theoretical framework.
Present Future Scope: Elaborate on potential avenues for further research or development in refining the model and broadening its application.
Review Implications: Discuss the broader implications of the research findings on English education and potential adaptations in teaching methodologies.
There are some issues in the technical writing. For example consider the first line of abstract. The word "world" can be replaced with "international" for better perspective.
Consider line 48 and the use of word "Tercanlioglu". I believe this should be accompanied by a reference or full form.
The abstract can be more precise and avoid repetition of ideas.
The contributions should be listed point wise at the end of the introduction.
After a meticulous review of the insightful research exploring the application of deep learning algorithms in assessing English text readability, particularly within the realm of college English teaching, I've assembled specific recommendations for further enhancement: This is a valuable and interesting idea. However, with the current quality, this article cannot be published. This article has many defects, so my suggestion is a minor revision.
Please see the attached file for the detailed information
Following aspects needs to be improved/discussed.
• Consider enlarging the dataset beyond the current sources of college English textbooks and primary school materials to enhance model robustness.
• Provide Data Sources: Include details regarding the specific English textbooks used to build the legibility dataset for transparency and replicability.
• Clarify Parameters: Elaborate on the specific parameters and criteria utilized in constructing the legibility dataset to enhance understanding.
• Provide a clearer description of the experimental design to facilitate understanding of the controlled and experimental variables.
• Specify the rationale behind selecting random corpus materials for the control group to strengthen experimental integrity.
• Please increase the justification of the chosen method and compare it with similar approaches in this research area. Please increase the number of references to others similar studies. A well-developed table may help to improve this part.
Please see the attached file for the detailed information
Following aspects needs to be improved/discussed.
• Discussion section needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular, and help us see the relevance of what the authors have proposed. Author need to contextualize the findings in the literature, and need to be explicit about the added value of your study towards that literature.
• Ensure clarity and coherence in presenting the research conclusions to distinctly elucidate each identified outcome.
Please see the attached file for the detailed information
Please see 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.