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 clearly addressing all the reviewers' comments. I confirm that the quality of your paper has been improved. The paper now appears to be ready for publication in light of this revision.
Best wishes,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jyotismita Chaki, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
There is an incorrect reference in Table 18, marked as a "?".
Dear authors,
Thank you for your submission. Your article has not been recommended for publication in its current form. However, we do encourage you to address the concerns and criticisms of the reviewers and resubmit your article once you have updated it accordingly.
Best wishes,
**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 [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 article includes sufficient introduction and background information; however, in the introduction section, the author separately discusses the background and their own methodology without analyzing the existing problems. There is some analysis of the problems in the later related work section. It is recommended to briefly summarize the identified issues in the introduction section. Additionally, in the introduction part, when summarizing the contributions of the article, the author's statements are somewhat vague, such as "This study proposed an approach for suicide prediction using depression-related social media posts and machine learning methods." It is suggested to provide a concise summary of the proposed methods.
2、In the "Materials and Methods" section, it is recommended to adjust the orientation of the text in Figures 1 and 3 within the preprocessing techniques section to enhance the readability of the images.
3、In section 3.4.1, it is recommended to provide an explanation for "mode{}" in Equation (5).
1、The dataset provided in the paper is mentioned as "suicide and depression detection (https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/nikhileswarkomati/suicide-watch)." However, the actual dataset used in the code appears to be related to "human stress detection during sleep (https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/laavanya/human-stress-detection-in-and-through-sleep)." There seems to be an inconsistency between the dataset mentioned and the one used in the code. It is advisable for the authors to verify and clarify this discrepancy.
no comment
My considerations are in the attached PDF.
My considerations are in the attached PDF.
My considerations are in the attached PDF.
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.