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.
I confirm that the new version has been improved and the authors have addressed the reviewers' comments, which were largely minor.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Arkaitz Zubiaga , a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
To address the reviewers' comments when resubmitting the manuscript, the authors should:
- Correct citation formatting, e.g., revise citations to ensure proper format throughout the paper.
- Strengthen the rationale for focusing on sensors.
- Separate the discussion of sign and spoken language aspects, as combining them may confuse readers.
- Include the time frame of the studies reviewed in the abstract, which is currently missing.
- Review and integrate the latest research and technologies in the field to improve the methodology.
The article is clear and ambiguous but in some parts the citations are not written in a correct format. eg.
588 The (Wen et al., 2021) presents a table.....
There are sufficient literature review but the reason for focusing on sensors is a little weak. Also the audio and visual aspects seem to be put in one place so it may be easier to separate the language aspect to the environmental sound aspect.
The methodology for collecting the articles are clear and the use of tables and figures help the reader understand the study design. Yet the definition of sensor seem a little vague and the reason for focusing on sensors remain still weak.
The findings are interesting but as mentioned in the basic reporting, the sign language aspect and spoken language aspect should be separated. Mixing the two will make it difficult for the deaf to find the appropriate data or findings that suit their needs.
Overall interesting topic and the data collection provides insights into sensors that can aid the deaf. It would be more interesting to add some social background of the deaf and the different sensors that can aid different types of deaf or hard of hearing people. As for the technology side the paper thoroughly covers the main topic.
Good
The abstract does not mention the time frame for the studies reviewed. This could be a limitation if the review only covers recent work or omits older but relevant studies.
sources adequately cited
The review organized logically into coherent paragraphs/subsections
Methodology can improve based on latest technologies.
The systematic literature review successfully organizes and presents the current state of intelligent sensors in assistive technologies, specifically for the deaf. The review identifies various scientific solutions and discusses their potential beyond traditional hearing aids, which supports the broader goal of enhancing the quality of life for deaf individuals. The argument is further supported by references to specific systems, such as inclusive intelligent cities and home assistants, indicating a comprehensive analysis of how these technologies can be applied in real-world situations.
The conclusion identifies unresolved questions, gaps, and future directions. It notes that certain articles did not provide complete specifications, such as information on sensor maintenance, availability, accessibility, consumption, and cost. Additionally, it highlights the need for further research into integrating these solutions into more comprehensive systems that can handle disaster risk events and other daily challenges. The conclusion also emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and end-user involvement, pointing to future directions for improving the development and acceptance of these technologies.
Methodology can improve based on latest technologies. So study latest research works in this filed.
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.