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.
Dear authors, we are pleased to verify that you meet the reviewer's valuable feedback to improve your research.
Thank you for considering PeerJ Computer Science and submitting your work.
Kind regards
PCoelho
1. The abstract can be further streamlined.
2. Most of the cited references are relatively dated. It is recommended to further explore the current research in this field.
3. The following articles are relevant to this field, and it is recommended that you consider citing them.
（1） Transfer Learning for Regression through Adaptive Gaussian Process
（2） The influence of slurry density on in situ density
No comment
No comment
No comment
Dear authors,
Thanks a lot for your efforts to improve the manuscript.
Nevertheless, some concerns are still remaining that need to be addressed.
Like before, you are advised to critically respond to the remaining comments point by point when preparing a new version of the manuscript and while preparing for the rebuttal letter.
Kind regards,
PCoelho
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
1. The paper has a complete structure and is detailed and substantial in content.
2. The overall language is quite professional, but some sentences could be simplified.
3. Some of the images in the paper are blurry; it is recommended to replace them with higher-definition ones, such as Figure 1.
1. The description of the data set production process used in the experiment is brief; it is recommended to provide a more detailed account of the production process.
1. The ideas presented in the paper are innovative and quite meaningful.
2. The research conclusions clearly respond to the original research question and are stated solely based on supportive results. Further discussion on the implications of these findings and their impact on industrial applications would enhance the depth and value of the discourse.
Dear authors,
Thanks a lot for your efforts to improve the manuscript.
Nevertheless, some concerns are still remaining that need to be addressed.
Like before, you are advised to critically respond to the remaining comments point by point when preparing a new version of the manuscript and while preparing for the rebuttal letter.
Kind regards,
PCoelho
1.Language and Grammar:
While the overall language is clear and professional, some sentences can be more fluent.
2.Literature References:
The references are comprehensive and relevant, but the inclusion of some recent studies would enhance the timeliness of the paper.
3.Structure:
The paper's structure conforms to PeerJ standards and is logically organized, making it easy to follow. However, more technical details in the methods section would help readers better understand the research process.
1.The research question is well-defined, relevant, and meaningful. The paper clearly states how the research addresses an identified knowledge gap.
2.The methods are described in sufficient detail to allow replication by other researchers. More details about data preprocessing, especially feature selection and data cleaning, would be beneficial.
3.The investigation was conducted to a high technical and ethical standard, with rigorous experimental design.
1.All underlying data are robust, statistically sound, and well-controlled.
2.The conclusions are well-stated, linked to the original research question, and limited to supporting results. A deeper discussion of the implications of the findings and their impact on industrial applications would be valuable.
1.Please ensure that all figures and images have not been inappropriately manipulated. Additionally, the metadata identifiers in the supplementary files should be more descriptive to be useful to future readers.
2.The authors should provide a more detailed explanation of how the proposed method handles different types of concept drift (sudden, gradual, incremental, and recurrent). This would help readers better understand the robustness and adaptability of the model in various industrial scenarios.
Clear
Clear
Clear
Dear authors,
Some concerns are still remaining that need to be addressed.
You are advised to critically respond to the comments point by point when preparing a new version of the manuscript and while preparing for the rebuttal letter. R2 has provided additional comments in their PDF
Kind regards,
PCoelho
Formula Display Errors: Some of the formulas in the text exhibit display issues, particularly symbol overlap and formatting inconsistencies, which compromise their clarity and accuracy, causing inconvenience for readers. Please thoroughly review and correct these errors to ensure that all formulas are presented correctly and accurately, thereby maintaining the scholarly rigor of the paper.
I noticed an excessive use of formulas throughout the article, which may pose difficulties for readers in comprehending the paper's message. While formulas are essential in scientific papers to precisely express mathematical relationships and theoretical models, an overwhelming number of them can confuse non-specialist readers and potentially detract from the grasp of the paper's core ideas. Therefore, I recommend maintaining only the necessary formulas while appropriately reducing their quantity.
no comment
As above
The work topic is sure of interest, and the amount of work done, and information provided define the work contributions. Also, the structure of the article is well done. Authors explained the contributions made in the paper very well, as well as the structure of other sections.
This submission considered the issue of concept drift in slurry density detection models within industrial environments and proposed an intelligent detection algorithm specifically designed for slurry density in concept drift data streams.
The work is clear, and the framework is straightforward. However, I have a few concerns after reviewing the submission, particularly regarding the validity of the findings. Please, check my comments, attached.
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.