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.
The revision was successfully managed and completed.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Daniel Katz, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
I think it is suitable for publication in the journal
I think it is suitable for publication in the journal
I think it is suitable for publication in the journal
The authors have addressed all of my earlier concerns, and the robustness of the results has improved. I have no objection to accepting this paper.
No comment
No comment
More experiments are needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the study.
1. The abstract and conclusion are not written properly; the authors need to rewrite it.
2. The motivation and contribution of this work needs to be highlighted in proper manner in the introduction section to make it clearer for the readers to comprehend the main theme targeted in this article.
3. The contribution of this work is limited since there exists many articles that targeted the same topic. The authors should highlight their contributions in a proper manner by emphasizing on how their work is different from other articles?
1. Also, the related work section is just enumerating the previous studies, it would be better to highlight their shortcomings and relate them to this work.
2.The authors need to compare their results with latest state-of-the-art studies published in top journals and conferences
No comment
What is the complexity by this model? Authors should justify that by using Leema or Mathematical analysis. Author should present some tabular comparisons of existing schemes at the end of related work.
no comment
no comment
no comment
Although the study is promising, it has some weaknesses:
Because it is not mentioned whether the results are obtained using multiple runs, I assume that the results are the output of a single run. Therefore, the results may have a chance factor as some parts of the dataset are randomly generated (i.e., relationship values), and the results depend on the initial conditions. I suggest the authors conduct the runs repeatedly and then use the mean or median of those runs.
The study is compared to only one method. I suggest the authors compare their results with more methods if there are no specific reasons.
No comment (please see above)
No comment (please see above)
No comment (please see above)
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.