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.
This manuscript is ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jyotismita Chaki, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
paper is revised according to suggestions so I recommend for accept
experimental design is given properly
results are given properly
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Please incorporate the comments of the reviewers.
**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 paper based the model analysis
The experiment design is given properly
-
Overall, the paper is organized properly, and the concept and future research directions are clearly outlined. However, the manuscript requires substantial improvements before it can be considered for publication. The following major revisions must be addressed:
1. The problem statement and motivation are not clearly articulated in the introduction. The authors must revise this section to explicitly define the research gap and justify the significance of the study.
2. Although the algorithm is discussed, no pseudocode is provided. Including pseudocode is essential for clarity and reproducibility and must be added to the manuscript.
3. The paper contains numerous grammatical errors. A thorough language and grammar check is required to ensure clarity and professionalism in the final version.
4. The manuscript includes only a limited number of references. To enhance the scholarly value and attract a broader readership, the authors must incorporate a more comprehensive review of recent literature.
A professional manuscript structure and figures are needed
Compare proposed model performance metrics with existing models.
-
1. Kindly include a clear and well-labeled block diagram of your proposed work. This is essential for helping readers understand the workflow and components of your methodology at a glance.
2. Please justify the entire manuscript text to improve readability and maintain consistent formatting. Additionally, ensure that paragraph lengths are concise and appropriately structured.
3. The literature review section is overly lengthy. Summarize the key points more concisely while retaining essential citations and highlighting the most relevant contributions.
4. Move the section outlining the contributions of the paper to follow the literature review. This will improve the logical flow and help readers better understand the novelty of your work in context.
5. You mention the use of real-time video data. Please elaborate on the preprocessing techniques applied before model training and testing. Include specific steps such as frame extraction, resizing, normalization, and noise removal.
6. Include a comparative analysis of the proposed model against existing models. Present quantitative results and cite relevant studies to clearly demonstrate the improvements and advantages of your approach.
7. Ensure that all references are properly cited within the manuscript and that a consistent citation style is followed throughout.
8. Add section numbers to all major parts of the manuscript (e.g., Introduction, Methodology, Results, etc.) to enhance structure and ease of navigation.
9. Please rename the section heading “Conclusions” to “Conclusion” for consistency and correctness.
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.