Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on April 28th, 2020 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on June 5th, 2020.
  • The first revision was submitted on June 29th, 2020 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on July 24th, 2020 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 18th, 2020.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· Aug 18, 2020 · Academic Editor

Accept

After reviewing the new version of the manuscript and the changes based on the suggestions given by reviewers, I think the paper is ready for publication now.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Authors have improved it quite well.

Experimental design

Aim of design is clear

Validity of the findings

Findings seem staisfactory

Additional comments

Authors have improved the manuscript quite well. It can be accepted for publication.

Version 0.2

· Jul 14, 2020 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Please follow the recommendation of reviewer 1. The paper needs more improvement for publication.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: This submission is no longer being considered as a COVID-19-related submission because the reviewers have identified that it is incidental to the research. Publication fees will NOT be waived so please contact us at editorial.support@peerj.com if you wish to withdraw it from consideration.#]

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.  It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter.  Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Paper is still not in proper format. No heading and sub headings are defined.

Experimental design

Although authors have added suitable diagram but the explanation of diagram is ambiguous.

Validity of the findings

Authors have added too many snapshots. Why so??

Additional comments

1. Many potential references are missing such as Classification of COVID-19 patients from chest CT images using multi-objective differential evolution–based convolutional neural networks, Classification of the COVID-19 infected patients using DenseNet201 based deep transfer learning, Automated deep transfer learning-based approach for detection of COVID-19 infection in chest X-rays.
2. Too many grammatical and typo mistakes are there.
3. Paper needs a good formatting.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jun 5, 2020 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Please address the main issues pointed out by reviewer 1. The paper need major improvement to be ready for publication.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: This submission is no longer being considered as a COVID-19-related submission because the reviewers have identified that it is incidental to the research. Publication fees will NOT be waived so please contact us at editorial.support@peerj.com if you wish to withdraw it from consideration.#]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The paper is poorly written and organized

Experimental design

The design of experiments is not upto mark.

Validity of the findings

Unable to obtain the validity analyses, author should consider some reputed journal's paper to revise the paper.

Additional comments

The paper is poorly organized.
There is no relationship between the COVID-19 and the written paper, except authors mentions somewhere in the entire manuscript.
I am unable to obtain the novel contributions of the paper.
Authors should discusses the motivation and contribution more efficiently.
This paper needs to be improved carefully prior to the publication in the reputed journals.

In current form, I am unable to recommend this paper for publication.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

In this paper, authors discuss various NoSQL DBMS types, compare their difference, and propose a method to choose the most appropriate type for a certain application.

Experimental design

In the algorithm, the authors describe an algorithm to select a NoSQL DBMS based on various criteria.

Validity of the findings

This is a paper that does a survey of various NoSQL DBMS systems, and propose an approach to select the most appropriate one for a certain case.

Additional comments

In this paper, authors discuss various NoSQL DBMS types, compare their difference, and propose a method to choose the most appropriate type for a certain application.

The title indicated that the research work is closely related to COVID-19, however, the content of the paper did not have much of a discussion. The quality of the paper could be further improved if the authors could provide more COVID-19 related work.

Also, there are some syntax and grammar errors. For example, in line 836, "This paper offers a set of web services that four encryption cryptosystems.", etc.

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.