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,
Despite the comments of Reviewer 3, the overall feedback and revisions to your paper have been discussed with the Section Editors and we believe the manuscript was carefully revised and so it can be accepted as it is.
Best regards
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Claudio Ardagna, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors made modifications and changes to the work.
This topic does not yet have consistent contributions and concrete evidence, it needs to be detailed in depth with specifications and better details.
Contribution and novelty presentation are weak, and few research problems are solved concretely.
Technically, the work is weak; the authors could explore this aspect better. Theoretically, the work must be expanded, compared, and present concrete evidence.
Dear authors, please accept my apologies, please address the comments of the reviewer
The article "Design and implementation of the international news
commentary Data Intelligent Processing System" does not describe or show how the implementations were carried out or the variables used. Tests and results are based on a few figures with few details.
I did not identify concrete evidence of criteria and parameters used, algorithm developed, or justifications for implemented code.
I did not understand which problems were solved.
What is new about the work?
What characteristics justify publishing the results presented? What results?
If we forget the technical part, there is also no comparison with the literature, robust related works, or presentation of new features of the work in relation to the current bibliographic state of the art.
I believe that authors should reflect on what concrete implementations their work has? What technical tests and comparisons?
What are the new developments?
What scientific problems does it propose to solve and have it actually managed to solve?
What scientific contributions does the work present?
Based on the reviewer comments, the manuscript must be revised before acceptance.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
The authors addressed previous comments, hence this paper is recommended for publication.
N/A
N/A
N/A
The article "Design and Implementation of the International news
commentary Data Intelligent Processing System" has a good theme and can contribute to the magazine and readers.
Some suggestions for improvement
In the introduction, include new features that this work presents. I suggest a 2024 citation.
In related work
It is imperative to include current references and literature (2022, 2023, and 2024), it is not clear what criteria and comparison parameters were used between the literature researched about this work.
I strongly suggest including a comparison table.
It is not clear in the methods which variables were used and their respective justifications. However, there is a link to the data set provided by the authors at https://zenodo.org/records/10212285
It is unclear to the reader which and how the algorithms were defined, especially how they can be used in other scenarios and applications.
The mathematical equations are not clear about their use and adaptation to the proposed solution, as it stands it seems more like they were placed to provide focus and mathematical credibility but without justification and concrete evidence.
In the conclusions, the problems and results obtained, news, and especially the scientific contributions are not evident. Nor is it clear what future work and the exact points that future researchers will be able to continue from this work are.
References
Review, some are outdated or contain insufficient information, including DOI or ISSN.
The figures included in the annexes leave the work poor, the quality and way in which they are presented are very poor.
I believe it is a work in progress and therefore, I suggest that the authors improve it considerably and resubmit it.
I hope to have contributed to improving the quality of the work developed.
Based on the Reviewer 2, the authors must detail the method, and clarify the scope of the manuscript in the computer science field. Also, the language must be proofread.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The Academic Editor 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
The authors have revised the paper based on previous listed concerns, therefore, i am happy to suggest the acceptance of the article.
No further concerns
No further concerns
### English language
English language is clear, but the style does not answer academic standards. There are expressions like:
> When a user clicked the search button...
### Intro, background and references
Abstract and introduction focus the submitted text in the scope of the application of the topic, not in the scope of the development of the method.
### Text structure
Needs a general restructure. It contains too much bullets, some of them not in a standard form.
### Figures and tables
As I mentioned before, most of the figures are screenshots that bring no information about any method in the scope of the computer science. An exception is Figure 1 that shows the workflow of a web-page. The figure is barely explained in the text.
### Raw data
The authors submitted implementation written in Python.
### Originality of the research and scope of the journal
The text is heavily focused on the application itself. Like this, it is more appropriate as a proposition that is outside computer science scope.
### Research questions definition
The text does not contain a clear definition of a problem in the scope of informatics or computer science that is analyzed and solved in the proposition.
### Technical and ethical standards of the research
From a technical point of view, the text does not contain a description of a single method, model or algorithm. Technically, this cannot be a computer science article.
### Description detail sufficiency to replicate
I don't see an algorithm or method described in this text.
The section **Experiments and Results** contains description of a series of actions taken by the system. The text does not clearly state an algorithm, but a sequence of technical actions.
### Impact and novelty
No impact nor novelty can be concluded from this proposition.
The proposition in computer science journal must put in the center of the description the **methods and algorithms** developed.
Based on the reviewers comments, you may have the opportunity to address the different issues raised. Please try to focus it on computer science field.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that 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
This paper has the following major concerns:
1) The author states that "international news commentary has changed." What does this mean, and how has it changed?
2) The author mentions that it causes noise. What is the meaning of noise in this context? Is it referring to Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) or something else? Overall, the abstract is poorly written.
3) The author does not provide any details about their proposed work, methodology, model, etc., in the abstract.
4) Why is the related work divided into subsections? What is the criterion for this division?
5) The methodology does not provide insights into the proposed work, methods, framework, etc. Additionally, the figures are poorly drawn.
6) This paper does not provide insights into how the proposed work is efficient in its implications.
7) The writing needs a lot of improvements as well.
Included in Basic Reporting
Included in Basic Reporting
Nil
### English language
English language is clear an professional.
### Intro, background and references
Abstract and introduction are fully focused on the application of the described method. They do not discus the natural language processing method that should be in the focus of the text, if it has to be published in a computer science journal.
Keywords that are selected by authors either are not appropriate, or they show that this text must be addressed to a journal that is not focused on computer science. An exception is the keyword *Python* which is not appropriate for this text, because the text does not suggest anything that is related to the programming language Python as an object of research.
### Text structure
Needs a general restructure. It contains too much bullets, some of them not in a standard form.
### Figures and tables
The proposition contains quite few figures that describe the proposed method and too much screenshots. Some of the figures contain inscriptions with small font that are hard to read.
### Raw data
The authors submitted implementation written in Python. I would like to point out that this does not mean that *Python* must be included as a keyword, since the text does not discuss anything that is related to a research in the Python language.
### Originality of the research and scope of the journal
The text is heavily focused on the application itself. Like this, it is more appropriate as a proposition that is outside computer science scope.
### Research questions definition
Research questions are not well defined. There are claims which have no proof like even in the abstract:
> Traditional platforms often lack data-driven analysis capabilities.
There must be a real analysis what are the gaps in the online systems and how an NLP system can fill them.
### Technical and ethical standards of the research
From a technical point of view, the text does not contain a description of a single method, model or algorithm. Technically, this cannot be a computer science article.
### Description detail sufficiency to replicate
I don't see an algorithm or method described in this text.
The section **Experiments and Results** actually gives an implementation summary that discusses different technologies used by authors. I would like to stress again that list of technologies or programming language selection does not turn a research into computer science article proposition.
### Impact and novelty
There is no comparison with existing similar systems. No impact nor novelty can be concluded from this proposition.
The proposition in computer science journal must put in the center of the description the methods and algorithms developed. It must contain the mathematical description of the NLP methods that are used. It must describe in detail developed methods (using mathematics and pseudocode, etc.). It must contain analysis for the effectiveness of the proposed approach based on deep mathematical analysis of the proposed algorithms, or based on experimental comparison with existing methods, or both. In this shape, this text is not in the scope of computer science.
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.