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 resubmitting your paper after making the necessary changes. Based on the input from the experts I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript is accepted.
Thank you
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Carlos Fernandez-Lozano, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have improved the document and had covered all important components.
The article is revised with sufficient information.
Findings arejustified.
The authors have substantially improved the manuscript in response to the reviewers' comments. My original concerns have been adequately addressed, and the revised version is now clear, concise, and well-supported. I am happy to recommend the manuscript for publication
The authors have substantially improved the manuscript in response to the reviewers' comments. My original concerns have been adequately addressed, and the revised version is now clear, concise, and well-supported. I am happy to recommend the manuscript for publication
The authors have substantially improved the manuscript in response to the reviewers' comments. My original concerns have been adequately addressed, and the revised version is now clear, concise, and well-supported. I am happy to recommend the manuscript for publication
The experts opinion has been received and you will see that some revisions need to be addressed. Therefore please update the paper in light of experts opinion and also:
* Improve the language of the paper
* Add justification about the novelty for the paper
* Add justification of validation for the proposed model.
Please carefully revise and resubmit.
Overall paper need proof reading and professional English writing suitable for journal. Introduction and conclusion need significant improvement to convince reader that a real & challenging problem is addressed by authors.
Abstract: Abstract can be updated with relevant academic vocabulary. such as first line "pays more and more" could be replaced with more appropriate terminologies.
Introduction:
1-References are missing. Authors must include relevant and updated references in this section to highlight significance of their work.
2- "Icing on the cake" on line 40 is must be replaced with academic research writing style and vocabulary.
3- objective of research not define din introduction section.
4- Authors need to clearly state the problem they are going to address and why is it significant.
Conclusion: Authors need to reemphasize the importance of research work. Avoid ambiguous sentences such as line 470 "However, the final animation synthesis depends on AE software, which the article should mention in depth." What authors means is not clear.
References: Authors need to rigorously review the existing literature and improve formatting.
The experimental design is pretty straightforward.
Impact and novelty is not fully addressed.
Paper is more suitable for a conference.
Authors should provide further in-depth descriptions of the technical implementations, particularly the VRML improvements and fuzzy model recognition. By elaborating on these elements, readers will better comprehend the innovations and their significance.
A more organized approach is required for the methodology section. The details of the VRML script integration and how fuzzy model recognition was used to enhance animation features are outlined here.
The data analysis concerning the connection between the frame rate and the number of triangles in virtual animation scenes could be more detailed. To clearly show the benefits of your approach, include graphs, statistical analysis, and comparisons to other techniques.
While it is laudable to maintain a frame rate of more than 40 frames per second, additional information on additional evaluation metrics could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the system's functioning. Latency, user experience ratings, and comparison with industry standards are factors to consider.
Provide a comparison analysis with current technologies and methods in 3D animation and virtual reality. Highlight the distinct features of your method and how it differs from or enhances current practices.
Through a summary of the significant findings, the significance of the contributions, and the wider implications for the field of 3D animation and VR, the conclusion can be strengthened.
Proofread the paper to improve readability in general and fix grammatical mistakes. As an example, the phrase "VRML can create 3D animation stereoscopic shapes and scenes and can map on the model, add lighting effects, establish user event response, and other better 3D animation stereo interaction" could be simplified to make it clearer.
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.