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.
Thanks for your resubmission, after careful consideration of the revised version, I'm pleased to notify you that we are now recommending your article for publication. Thank you for your fine contribution.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Daniel Katz, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear authors,
Thank you for re-submitting your manuscript with the incorporation of technical comments. I am pleased to inform you that reviewers are now satisfied with the technical contribution of your manuscript. To uphold the further quality of the paper. I suggest you add the future research direction and improve the langue of the paper in the second round as it would be a good time to improve the paper's language.
Thank you
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
All changes have been completed.
All changes have been completed.
All changes have been completed.
Thank you for addressing the comments. I would recommend adding 'Future Research Directions' and a double read for English improvements.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Dear authors
Your manuscript has been reviewed with interest by the experts in the field and you can see that they are advising lot of improvement suggestions, therefore I endorse their input and also suggest the following to incorporate before you resubmit the article
1. Who are the targeted audience who can benefits from this research?
2. Clearly state the need for the research and the motivation behind it.
3. Improve the technical language of the manuscript.
4. Is the proposed approach applicable to one language for translation or is it a generic approach that is applicable to all languages?
Thank you
**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 [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 quality of the figures presented in the paper is substandard. The authors should enhance the clarity and resolution of all graphical elements to ensure they effectively convey the intended information.
2- The introduction section lacks a clear problem formulation. The authors need to explicitly define the problem they are addressing to provide context and focus for their research.
3- The literature review is insufficient. The authors should conduct a thorough review of existing research, highlighting relevant studies and situating their work within the broader academic context.
4- The methodology section would benefit from the inclusion of a flow diagram. This should illustrate the overall research process and clearly indicate where the authors' contributions fit within this framework.
5- The results section is missing details about the evaluation metrics used. The authors should clearly describe the metrics employed to assess their work, including any rationale for their selection.
6- There is a lack of information about the datasets used in the study. The authors should include comprehensive details about the datasets, including their sources, characteristics, and any preprocessing steps undertaken.
7- The paper does not currently have a discussion section. The authors should add this to interpret their results, discuss their implications, and suggest potential areas for future research.
8- The objectives of the research are not clearly stated. The authors should provide a concise summary of their research goals early in the paper to guide readers through their study.
9- Both the abstract and conclusion sections are lacking in detail. The authors should ensure that the abstract succinctly summarizes the key points of their research, and that the conclusion effectively synthesizes their findings and contributions.
10- The paper should be reviewed for consistency and coherence. This includes ensuring that terminology is used consistently throughout, that arguments are logically structured, and that the overall narrative flows smoothly from one section to the next.
Dear Author,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled "Automated Programming Approaches to Enhance Computer-Aided Translation Accuracy" . I appreciate your detailed exploration of the advancements in computer-aided translation (CAT), particularly focusing on the integration of automatic programming to improve translation accuracy. Your work is timely and relevant given the growing reliance on CAT systems in the globalized world. Based on the initial evaluation, I recommend that your manuscript undergoes major revisions to enhance its clarity, depth, and methodological rigor. Please find detailed comments below that should guide your revisions.
Recommendations: Major Revision
1. While the purpose of the study is clearly stated in the abstract, the specific research questions or hypotheses are not clearly articulated. Please clarify these elements to better frame the study's goals.
2. The methodology section would benefit from a more detailed description of the CAT systems used, particularly the specific algorithms and translation memory technologies employed (e.g., pages 3–4). This will aid in assessing the study's replicability.
3. On page 6, the metrics used to evaluate translation accuracy are introduced, but their selection criteria and relevance to the study's objectives are not discussed in depth. Please provide a rationale for choosing these metrics.
4. The manuscript would benefit from a more robust statistical data analysis, particularly when comparing CAT and traditional methods. Consider including tests of significance and confidence intervals to support your findings (page 7).
5. The concept and application of translation memory technology are mentioned briefly. It would be useful to expand on how these memories were built and utilized, as well as their impact on translation accuracy.
6. In the section on automatic programming, more detail is needed on how these programs specifically enhance the translation process compared to manual programming.
7. Figures 1 and 2, which depict the CAT model and translation memory, should be more clearly labeled and referenced in the text. Additionally, the descriptions should elaborate on their relevance to the study's findings.
8. Provide more information about the corpus used for testing CAT systems, including details on size, content, and selection criteria. This is crucial for understanding the study's scope and limitations.
9. Address how the complexity of the source text (e.g., technical jargon, acronyms) might affect translation accuracy differently for CAT and human translators.
10. Discuss how CAT systems handle contextual nuances in translation compared to human translators. Are there specific strategies or tools used?
11. Strengthen the conclusion by summarizing the key findings and their implications for the future of CAT and translation studies.
none
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.