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 Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Authors provide proper answers for my questions.
Authors provide proper answers for my questions.
Authors provide proper answers for my questions.
Satisfied.
Satisfied.
Satisfied.
I am satisfied overall with the author's revision, and I believe now the paper can be accepted in its current form.
Please revise the paper according to the reviewer's comments.
Reviewers 1 & 2 have requested that you cite specific references. You may add them if you believe they are especially relevant. However, I do not expect you 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.
Authors proposed a defect identiûcation method for bare PCB based on multi-feature fusion. Authors showed previous work with advantages and disadvantages. Published results for accuracy is good. However, there are some comments as below.
1. Authors showed Equations (11)-(16) but it might combine them. It is also fine to leave that if it does not need to combine them.
2. Please cite (The principle of it is to use image acquisition~) with ref. (https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/15/4968).
3. Figure 4 quality looks low.
1. Why authors choose e Bayesian theory to calculate the weights of each group ? Is there any method?
1. Authors had better mention future work and limitation of the proposed work.
PFA
PFA
PFA
PFA
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.