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.
Good work carried and timely submitted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
ok
ok
ok
overall paper is good
it is adequate
it is adequate
it is adequate
revised version is recommended for publication
Dear Author,
Greetings for the Day!!!
Please do the requested suggestions from the reviewers to make the article effective.
Thanks
**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
In abstract, Give complete work of the paper in precise.
improve the literature with comparative analysis
Result and discussion is not clear
NA
Conclusion section: Summarize sentences the primary outcomes of the
study in a paragraph. Are the claims in this section supported by the
results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results
relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or
contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research
has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
1 .here are a lot of typo mistakes. In many places, instead of article or paper, word Thesis is used.
2. All the figures are provided at the end, they should have appeared on the page where they are first time discussed.
Working of proposed technique is not discussed. Moreover, discussion of presented algorithm and it’s steps is also missing.
In performance evaluation section, following things are missing: details of simulation tool, details of simulation environment, specifications of physical and virtual machines, details of used workloads, and specification of IoT devices.
Results are very limited. Proposed techniques hasn’t been compared with any state of the art technique. How can authors claim that they have achieved something when they haven’t compared it with any technique. Presented results are of a single technique on the basis of different migration and threshold mechanisms. Moreover, result discussion doesn’t show anything. Critical result analysis and rationale behind achieved results is missing.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The paper has been written well, Work flow and Results are good.
Highlight any significant problems, assets, or deficiencies in the paper's overall presentation of valuable research.
Although the results section is organized well, more background information on some findings would be beneficial.
Although the discussion offers insightful information, the research question could use more emphasis in the discussion.
The paper has a very clear and logical flow of ideas, and it is exceptionally well structured.
The writing is clear and succinct, which makes it simple for readers to understand the research methodology and findings.
There is not much detailed about the problem and data used and experiments. Instead authors have just concentrated on the AI part. Authors appear to be unaware much recent work on the topic related to composite and aeronautic sector. The literature review is poor. Below are just some examples of recent related work.
Hierarchical approach for uncertainty quantification and reliability assessment of guided wave-based structural health monitoring, Structural Health Monitoring 20 (5), 2274-2299
A scalable data-driven approach to temperature baseline reconstruction for guided wave structural health monitoring of anisotropic carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer structures Structural Health Monitoring 19 (5), 1487-1506
Uncertainty quantification for impact location and force estimation in composite structures, Structural Health Monitoring 21 (3), 1061-107
authors should provide a link to the experimental data used from NASA. More explanation of the experiment and nature of the data are required.
see above
none
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.