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 the reviewers' comments and performing the necessary additions and modifications. Your paper now seems acceptable now.
Best wishes,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Stefan Wagner, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
This paper can be accepted now.
This paper can be accepted now.
This paper can be accepted now.
This paper can be accepted now.
Dear authors,
Thank you for your revised paper. Feedback from the reviewers is now available. We would encourage you to address the minor concerns and criticisms raised by Reviewer 2 and resubmit your article once you have updated it accordingly.
Best wishes,
accept
accept
accept
accept
See below
See below
See below
According to the revised paper, I have appreciated the deep revision of the contents and the present form of this manuscript. But there is still a little content, which need be revised according to the comment of reviewer in order to meet the requirements of publish. A number of concerns listed as follows:
(1) The conclusion and motivation of the work should be added in a clearer way.
(2) How is the complexity of the proposed method? Please describe in detail.
(3) Correct typological mistakes and mathematical errors
(4) In order to further highlight the introduction, some advised references should be added to the paper for improving the review part and the connection with the literature.
(5) What is the practical difficulty of the research in the paper? And can this article be further studied?
Dear authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript article. Feedback from the reviewers is now available. Based on the reviews, your article has not been recommended for publication in its current form. However, we encourage you to address the concerns and criticisms of the reviewer and to resubmit your article once you have updated it accordingly.
Best wishes,
The authors stated that they developed a new objective function to control the frequency error profile in their study. They also stated that they used a gradient-based optimizer to solve this objective function. The authors' work is very valuable, but unfortunately there is not enough motivation and scientific innovation to explain why this study should be done.
As above
As above
As above
1. Introduction and Related Work: The introduction provides a good overview of the problem but could benefit from a more focused discussion on recent advancements in the field. The related work section should more explicitly differentiate the proposed method from existing approaches.
2. Methodology: While the methodology is detailed, some sections are overly complex and could be simplified. Providing a more intuitive explanation of the progressive learning approach and the attention mechanisms would help readers better understand the model's workings.
3. Figures and Tables: Figures and tables are informative but can be improved in terms of clarity and presentation. Ensuring consistent formatting and labeling will enhance their utility. Some figures are blurry and need higher resolution.
4. References: The reference section should be updated to include more recent studies. Additionally, ensure that all references are correctly formatted and cited in the text.
Which software is used to obtain the results?
Verify your proposed work results with other published work
the result section should try to rewrite the result section of the abstract to reflect more results that complement the technical achievements of the research beyond the excerpt error margin that was stated in the abstract section.
Thank you for considering my feedback. I look forward to seeing the improved version of your manuscript.
See below
See below
See below
1. I believe that there already exists a lot of related research work that the author should mention and cite in its introduction section.
2. The author should provide the organization of the article in the introduction section so that the readers should understand the workflow easily.
3. Figures quality need to be enhanced to better understanding.
4. In the abstract section, I would suggest that the author should provide to the point and quantitative advantages of the proposed method.
5. The literature review is poor in this paper. you must review all significant similar works that have been done. Also, review some of the good recent works that have been done in this area and are more similar to your paper.
6. Please highlight your contributions in introduction.
7. Please compare the pros and cons of existing solutions.
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.