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.
Respected Authors,
Thank you for your manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
The quality of the paper has been improved , the comments have been taken into account.
Ok.
Ok.
No more comments.
The paper is interesting. It has already been reviewed by reviewers and improved by authors. I have nothing to propose for improvements.
Figure 1 is a generic methodology for "how to develop articles". If the article were mine, I would not publish it, because it is too well known and does not bring anything new to the article.
The paper is interesting. I have nothing to propose for improvements
The conclusions are interesting
The paper is interesting and it can be published.
Thank you for your submission to PeerJ Computer Science.
It is my opinion as the Academic Editor for your article - A Systematic Literature Review of Hate Speech Identification on Arabic Twitter Data: Research Challenges and Future Directions - that it requires a number of Major Revisions accordance with review.
Please adjust your manuscript accordance with review comments and make changes in yellow colour.
The topic is well described and structured.
Methods are well described. Paper is in the scope of the journal. Review is well organized.
Originality is stated. Conclusions are supported by results. Authors added limitations and directions or further research
No further comments
The goal of this research has been described as " to examine the research trends in Arabic hate speech identification and offer guidance to researchers by highlighting the most significant studies published between 2018 and 2023".
Introduction part is too long. It is very easy to lose the plot. It should be shorten.
In the methodological part it is difficult to figure out that you use PRISMA methodology. You should mentioned about in the beginning. Also too many text in the methodology part and it would be better to present at one everything on the graph.
Research questions are formulated properly.
Results are interesting however I would suggest to think over about another form of presentation them - in more clear way - implement some table etc.
From the theoretical / logical point of view is ok, but it is not clear way of presentation.
Meet standards but modify the way of presentation .
As above.
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the PeerJ Journal. Please adjust all comments made by reviewers.
**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.
**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
No comment
The methods are clearly described, and investigation meets the standards. However, although the authors initially found many papers they finally selected 24 studies. They should add some evidence that these small number of studies generate robust results for a scietific bibliometric analysis.
Authors should extend their comments on the results of analysis, as per example why they have found a large number of such studies for West Asia?
The aim of this study has been clearly stated as " The goal is to examine
25 the research trends in Arabic hate speech identification and offer guidance to researchers by
26 highlighting the most significant studies published between 2018 and 2023"
The application of this research should be presented wider and it should not be limited to the guidance for researchers
The way of presentation as for example Research method - in some part you could use graph or sth like that to make it more clear in presentation. Especially "Quality Assessment" is not transparent.
Most of the findings are described in pure technical way as how many sth etc and it is just written way of presentation of numbers on the figure or table as for example presented in Publication year overview. Numbers can be read from table/ figure while you should add some comment and possible meanings.
Apart from it it is quite wide and good systematic review.
The structure and a way of presentation should be more transparent . For example: in search strings - queries are hardly to separate from the rest of the text;
No comment.
No comment.
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.