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.
The comments for the Reviewer 2 were accurately revised. The manuscript can be accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Claudio Ardagna, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors incorporated the comments accordingly.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Please consider the comments from the reviewers.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial 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 [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
1. The figures are not clear. High-resolution figures should be included.
2. In Table 2, the authors must include the limitations of existing schemes. Which motivates the authors to do this research.
3. In Algorithm 2, too many else-if statements are used. Which can lead the algorithm to high complexity. It seems the algorithm is with high complexity or should derive the complexity of the algorithms.
Fine.
Valid and Accurate.
N/A
The document structure is hard to follow.
The references list is extensive and doesn't focus on a subject.
The presentation is dense and difficult to read.
The use of appendixes would be constructive.
The presentation should be restructured.
Hard to read.
The results seem to be reliable.
My suggestion is to redraft the entire document if it has to be accepted
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.