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.
Since the comments have been addressed, we are happy to inform you that your literature survey paper has been accepted for publication.
The authors have completed the revision process successfully.
The authors have completed the revision process successfully.
The authors have completed the revision process successfully.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
The paper has been revised well so it meets the standards in the main area.
The review process is now complete. While finding your paper interesting and worthy of publication, the referees and I feel that more work could be done before the paper is published.
**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
The authors present a survey study that specifically provides detailed information on the datasets used and developed for gait recognition in this research. But there are major concerns as follows:
- For reconstruction-based and free studies, too few studies are presented. It must be broadened.
- The studies presented for reconstruction-free are quite limited. It is important to include research conducted from 2018 to 2023 to provide a more comprehensive overview.
-The proposed methods are evaluated in terms of success under specific metrics. By discussing these metrics, it should be highlighted which of the proposed methods is more successful and their shortcomings should be addressed.
- A comprehensive investigation has been conducted on datasets related to gait recognition however there is not emphasis on the methods and models used for classification. It must be presented.
- The future work section should be expanded by addressing the shortcomings of the employed methods or suggesting new recognition approaches
1. Although there is no major language error, it would be more accurate if a revision is made to polish.
2. There are several studies on this topic. Although this survey gives some methodologies in the current literature, review is not completed enough. Recent and important references are missing.
3. The shape of paper seems good but there is a tipo about the titles. There are two main section which have same title as "review of methodologies". The second can be changed to the title of "review of literature".
The contribution is provided less than expected from this type surveys. The current state of the art is not discussed in detail. The contribution should be improved comprehensively.
No comment
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.