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.
Both reviewers are satisfied with the revision, and I'm therefore happy to accept this manuscript for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Daniel Katz, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
All my previous comments and requests were properly addressed and the paper was improved accordingly. I have no further objections to publish this paper. I recommend to accept it in its current form.
All my previous comments and requests were properly addressed and the paper was improved accordingly. I have no further objections to publish this paper. I recommend to accept it in its current form.
All my previous comments and requests were properly addressed and the paper was improved accordingly. I have no further objections to publish this paper. I recommend to accept it in its current form.
All my previous comments and requests were properly addressed and the paper was improved accordingly. I have no further objections to publish this paper. I recommend to accept it in its current form.
OK
ok
ok
NO
The reviewers have expressed a positive view of the manuscript, but they have given a number of suggestions to strengthen it further.
Authors present a new scheduling algorithm called MQAPS, which is claimed to be more efficient than the existing solutions. The paper is definitely relevant and interesting to read. However, several improvements must me bade before accepting this paper for publication.
1) a better explanation of the proposed solution is needed, providing more details with more standard flow chart or multiple diagrams is recommended. The colors used in the diagram should be consistent and clearly explained too. Maybe usage of activity diagram (UML) might help in this case.
2) a relatively simple but suitable example of tasks should be presented, in order to demonstrate the benefits of the proposed scheduling algorithm in comparison to an existing algorithm
3) the literature and related work is relatively short in this paper. I recommend adding more existing solutions relevant for the presented research, including hardware-accelerated schedulers and/or hardware-accelerated priority queues
It would be interesting to demonstrate your proposed solution on a realistic (real-world) scenario / set of test cases. Or at least to mention some potential applications that would benefit from your approach in comparison to existing solutions.
It would be also good to mention whether your solution can be (or already is) integrated to some of the most popular operating systems, e.g. FreeRTOS or Linux.
See my previous comments above. Nothing more to add.
See my previous comments above. Nothing more to add.
.
• There are a few small grammar mistakes, but they don't take away from the quality of the paper.
• The literature review is thorough, though adding newer studies could make it even stronger.
• Fixing the minor grammar issues will improve how smoothly the paper reads.
• Suggestions for improvement:
Correct the grammar mistakes.
Add recent studies to the literature review.
Discuss the study's limitations in more detail.
1-The research methods are clearly explained and easy to understand.
2-The results are well-presented, and the discussion connects the findings with other research effectively.
1-The paper is well-organized with a clear structure and flow
2- Overall, this is a strong and valuable paper that only needs small changes to improve
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.