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.
Thank you for your re-submission after incorporating comments. I am pleased to inform you that experts are now satisfied with your revision and I endorse their opinion to accept your article.
Thank you for your fine contribution
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have solved succesfully all the issues pointed during the review.
The authors have solved succesfully all the issues pointed during the review.
The authors have solved succesfully all the issues pointed during the review.
The authors have solved succesfully all the issues pointed during the review.
All the changes are incorporated
All the changes are incorporated
All the changes are incorporated
Dear Colleague
Your manuscript has been read with interest by the academic editor and the experts in the field. We are of the view that the article requires substantial changes to be incorporated before we re-consider it. Therefore, We invite you to incorporate the comments of the experts and mine and submit a detailed revised updated article covering all the aspects of the experts.
following are my suggestions.
1. The introduction should more clearly articulate the main objectives of the essay and the significance of applying AI and big data to VISCOM art
Terms like "STING algorithm," "multi-resolution clustering," and "convolutional neural network (CNN)" should be briefly defined for readers who may not be familiar with these concepts.
2. Include a brief literature review discussing previous work in the field of VISCOM art, big data, and AI.
3. Provide more details about implementing the STING algorithm and CNN.
4. Provide a more in-depth analysis of the results. Discuss why the clustering accuracy, scene element recognition, and facial recognition achieved the reported accuracies.
5. Strengthen the conclusion by summarizing the key findings and their implications for the field of VISCOM art.
6. Improve the overall readability and flow of the paper
**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 [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
The manuscript would benefit from a thorough review to enhance clarity and readability. Simplifying complex sentences and ensuring a logical flow between sections will improve comprehension (see throughout the manuscript).
Ensure all technical terms are clearly defined to make the manuscript accessible to a broader audience. This is important for readers who may not be technology specialists.
Include more details about the implementation environment, such as software versions and hardware specifications, to help readers understand the practical aspects of deploying the methods described.
Some references appear outdated or not directly relevant. Consider updating and expanding the references to include more recent studies directly related to the paper's core contributions.
Providing supplementary materials, such as algorithm source code or additional data, would support the reproducibility of your study and provide valuable resources for other researchers.
The paper mentions expert evaluations but lacks detail on the criteria and process used. More information about the evaluation methodology and the evaluators' expertise would lend credibility to the reported scores.
The conclusion should offer suggestions for future research directions, especially how AI and big data integration in VISCOM art can be refined or expanded. This would demonstrate the study's forward-looking perspective.
The manuscript should include a discussion of the study's limitations, such as potential biases in the data or limitations of the algorithms. Acknowledging these issues will provide a more balanced perspective.
It would be valuable to discuss ethical considerations related to the use of AI in creative fields, such as authorship and originality issues. This discussion is increasingly relevant as AI becomes more integrated into art and design.
The conclusion should summarize the findings and synthesize their implications for the field. It reads more like a summary; a more analytical approach would better highlight the study's contributions.
Dear Author,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript. We appreciate the depth of your research and the innovative approach you have taken in applying AI and big data technologies to the field of visual communication art (VISCOM). These comments aim to enhance your work's clarity, depth, and scientific rigor. Please prepare a detailed response to each point raised, including descriptions of the revisions made to the manuscript.
The manuscript explores integrating big data and AI technologies, specifically the STING algorithm and convolutional neural networks (CNNs), to design and evaluate visual communication art. The study aims to enhance the efficiency and intelligence of VISCOM art creation through these technologies, offering a novel approach to clustering and recognizing design elements in various art forms. The paper is well written. The Introduction section provides useful information for the readers. I recommend considering the paper for publication. However, the incorporation of the following comments could further improve the paper.
- The manuscript's introduction provides an overview of the application of AI and big data in VISCOM art design. However, a more detailed explanation of how these technologies are currently utilized in the field would provide better context for the study's contributions (see page 2, paragraph 3).
- The description of the STING algorithm is brief. Please expand on this section with more details on the algorithm's functioning and why it was chosen over other clustering methods. This will help us understand its specific benefits for the study (see Methodology).
- The manuscript mentions using CNNs for scene and facial recognition but lacks specific details about the architecture used. Including information about the number of layers, types of layers, and the reasons for these choices would clarify the technical foundation of your work.
- Limited information exists on the data sources and preprocessing steps. Elaborate on the origins, characteristics, and preprocessing techniques used on the datasets, as these are critical for understanding the data's reliability and relevance.
- More detail is needed regarding the experimental setup, including the selection criteria for design elements and the conditions under which experiments were conducted. This information is crucial for replicability and assessing the robustness of your findings (see Experimental Design).
- While accuracy metrics are reported, including additional metrics such as precision, recall, and F1 score would be beneficial. These metrics provide a more comprehensive view of the algorithms' performance (see Results).
- The results are presented, but their significance is limitedly interpreted. A deeper analysis of how these findings impact the field of VISCOM art would strengthen the discussion.
- Including a comparative analysis with other existing methods in the field could highlight your approach's unique contributions or advantages. This comparison would help situate your work within the broader research context.
- Additional visual representations, such as graphs and charts, would help clearly illustrate the findings in the manuscript. These visuals can help readers quickly grasp key results and trends.
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.