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 and for clearly addressing all the reviewers' comments. I confirm that the paper is improved and addresses the concerns of the reviewers. Your paper is now acceptable for publication in light of this revision. During final production, please ensure that the formatting especially on the use of equations is correct.
Best wishes,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Stefan Wagner, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear authors,
The reviewers have now commented on your revised manuscript. Although one reviewer is satisfied with the additions and changes, Reviewer 2 writes that his/her comments have not been fully addressed. Please consider the advice and comments of Reviewer 2, especially on basic reporting and readability, clarifying the limitations of the methodology, and validity of findings.
Best wishes,
**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:** 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
Author has done required change
no comment
no comment
no comment
1. Language should be edited by a professional speaker.
2. Tenses used should be checked properly.
3. The abstract could be expanded a bit. In particular, suggest adding a couple of sentences highlighting the contributions of this work to the state of the art and the major potential implications from the conducted research.
4. In the Literature Survey section should focus more on differences between this paper and other works to highlight the novelty of this paper. Also the disadvantages and shortcomings of the previous methods that are addressed in the proposed method must be stated.
no comment
5. Another criticism is the limited discussion on the potential limitations or challenges associated with the proposed system [section 4.3]. Considering the practical aspects and potential barriers to implementation would provide a more balanced perspective and enhance the usefulness of the article.
6. One final comment: you should check if all the things discussed in the introduction are also discussed in the conclusion. because the introduction is much longer than the conclusion.
This paper proposes an enterprise financial management method that uses signal conversion method of generating adversarial network to convert acquired user information for the financial management, so as to improve the efficiency of financial operation. However, this article still needs some improvements described below:
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, methodology, 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) It will be better to include the main contributions and organization of the paper at the end of Introduction section.
4) The values for the parameters of the algorithms selected for comparison are not given.
5) Explanations 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.
6) 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.
7) 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.
8) Please include future research directions.
9) Graphics and charts need more explanation.
10) 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 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
Financial management is an important information system development for enterprises. In view of the requirements of promoting the construction of enterprise information system, this paper puts forward a new method and puts forward the method of enterprise financial management. This method takes the conversion of user information signal as the center to effectively solve the challenge brought by management. Finally, this paves the way for optimizing the financial management system. The experiment proves that our method can get a mAP score of 81.9%, which can improve the enterprise financial performance management system. In addition, this article still needs to improve the following content:
(1) Considering the completeness and logic of the content, the abstract of the article needs to be described from the aspects of research background, research content, research model and research results;
(2) For the content of the introduction part, the author should pay attention to a reasonable connection between the quoted literature and the content introduced in this paper, and highlight the content proposed in this paper;
(3) In terms of content, section 2.2 continuously introduces the model algorithm and lacks the connection between advantages and disadvantages, which needs to be strengthened;
(4) As for the feature extraction description of the Transformer algorithm in section 3.1, what are the innovative advantages over LSTM?
(5) In order to enhance the generalization ability of the model algorithm in this paper, the author may need to consider adding data sets for experimental comparison in Section 4.1;
(6) The model evaluation indexes used in the experimental part of this paper seem to be insufficient. Perhaps the author can consider other evaluation models to enhance the experiment;
(7) The overall readability of the article needs to be enhanced. Try to replace the oral discourse with more professional paper terms;
(8) Given the integrity of the paper, I would suggest that the author add a discussion section at the beginning of the summary to adequately describe the relationship between the paper model and the field of application.
no comment
no comment
1. The content of the abstract is too little, and the introduction of the research background and the description of the model experimental results are lacking;
2. In order to highlight the contribution points of the article, the author should add the contribution points of the article at the end of the introduction section and need to be arranged by points;
3. Some of the language descriptions of the article may need to be strengthened, such as language skills polishing or the names of some model abbreviations;
4. Formulas (5) and (6) lack relevant explanations and need to be added to enhance the reader's understanding;
5. The GAN method proposed in this paper is mentioned in section 3.3, where the maximum pooling layer is replaced by the upper sampling layer, which needs to be described in detail by the author;
6. In the experimental part, the comparison between different parameters can be considered from the ablation experiment, so as to enrich the experimental results and support the model;
7. The description of the results in Figures 6 to 9 in the experiment can be more detailed in order to strengthen the description of the experiment and make it easier for other readers to understand;
8. The conclusion is too long and does not fully summarize the main content and highlights of the paper. In addition, I will suggest the author to increase the shortcomings of the model and the direction of future improvement.
This paper introduces the financial management method of an enterprise which takes user information signal conversion as the center, and uses the signal conversion method of generating adversarial network to use user information for financial management, so as to improve the efficiency of financial operation. The experimental results confirm the effectiveness of our method, and the mAP score is 81.9%. This method is superior to the existing methods and greatly improves the performance of the financial management system. However, this article still has the mentioned problems.
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.