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 authors have appropriately addressed the reviewers comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vicente Alarcon-Aquino, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have addressed most of the previously raised issues. However, a few concerns still need to be addressed, as outlined below:
1. The Abstract section is overly long; I recommend condensing it to improve clarity and focus.
2. Figure captions should be placed below the figures, not above them, in accordance with standard formatting guidelines.
3. Please improve the resolution of Figure 1 to ensure better clarity and readability.
4. I still recommend removing Figures 4 and 5, as they are more suited to a technical report rather than a research article.
5. Figure 15 lacks clarity; I suggest using alternative visualization methods to present the results more effectively.
I recommend to include more details about the experiment testbed.
I recommend to include more discussions.
NA
Per the discussion of your proposed edits, we are rescinding the Acceptance decision so that you can upload those edits for formal review.
Please supply:
your manuscript with tracked changes,
your manuscript with all changes accepted,
the corrected Figures 8 -16,
the letter describing all the changes requested as the rebuttal letter.
Authors have addressed most of the existing issues, however, there are several issues need to be considered as follows:
1. I recommend to remove the title "Problem Definition and Motivation" and add the two paragraph to the Introduction Section.
2. The Second Paragraph in "Related Works Section" is a very long paragraph. I recommend to divide this paragraph into shorten paragraphs.
3. I recommend to remove Figure 3. This is not a graduation project.
4. Figure 16 is totally unclear.
5. I recommend to address the following relevant research papers:
a. Social distance monitoring approach using wearable smart tags
b. A hybrid range-free localization algorithm for zigbee wireless sensor networks
c. A SLAM-based localization and navigation system for social robots: The pepper robot case
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
I recommend to reconsider Figure 3, 4, 5, 6, and 16.
Authors have addresses the raised issues in the Results Section.
NA
1. Problem Statement and Motivation: The rewritten introduction clearly outlines the research gap.
2. Literature Review: The related works section has been updated with more recent references.
3. Methodology: The suggested system is now well-defined.
4. Experimental Design and Results: Additional assessment metrics, statistical analysis, and explanation increase the credibility of the findings.
5. Figures and Presentation: Figures have been made more intelligible.
6. Language and Clarity: Some sentences might be improved for greater readability. A last proofreading pass is recommended.
7. Figure Formatting: Although enhanced, the figures may still be optimised for greater visual clarity.
8. Referencing Consistency: Ensure that all citations are uniformly structured.
No comment.
No comment.
Highly recommend for final proofreading.
The comments raised by both the authors should be addressed appropriately.
[# 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. #]
This paper proposed an improved algorithm combining a refinement procedure with PSO, called as DVHOP-PSO. This area is considered as a hot research area, however, I believe that this paper requires major revision prior to be accepted for publications.
Authors used poor English to illustrate the work presented in this paper.
The Introduction Section does not contain the problem neither the motivation for proposing this approach. Therefore, I recommend to rewrite the Introduction Section.
Authors didn't provide sufficient relevant studies in the Related Works Section. I recommend to rewrite this section, while considering several recent research works, and discuss the results of the existing works.
In this paper, the experimental design and implementation requires to be reconsidered.
For instance, authors included a section named as "Proposed Methodology", I recommend to change this title to Proposed system for example.
Authors didn't provide enough information about the proposed system, where authors offered only very basic details. I recommend to discuss your work in more details.
I recommend to reconsider the whole section "Proposed Methodology".
The obtained results are reasonable, however, I recommend to include a set of evaluation metrics that have been considered to assess the efficiency of the developed system.
Moreover, authors need to add more details with regards to the results section, and include more analysis and discussions.
In conclusion, the presented work in this paper is not acceptable for publication in its present format.
I recommend to rewrite the whole paper in a format of research paper.
The English in this manuscript can be improvised.
The literature references are quite simple and not too recent. I think they can be improved. Insufficient background/context provided.
The paragraphing is poor and needs modification.
The results presented can be improved as it is only presented in graph form which is quite difficult to grasp.
Need to improve on results discussion. Some statistical analysis will be helpful.
The improvement in PSO is quite shallow. The authors should show and justify the modification they are proposing.
The figures are poorly presented.
Perhaps there is some contribution but I failed to see it. Probably they have to highlight the contribution.
Quite hard to identify the knowledge gap.
No rigorous investigation was performed. Many elements of evaluations are not addressed. Perhaps they need to show the standard evaluations/assessments done for similar applications.
The proposed method was not described comprehensively and in detail.
None of the requests of publisher are properly address.
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.