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.
Congratulations on your valuable contribution.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
This manuscript is well organized, and my previous comments have been well addressed.
My previous comments have been well addressed.
My previous concerns have been well addressed.
The authors have provided clear and sufficient responses to my previous questions and concerns. In particular, the revisions to the figures and related content have improved the clarity of the manuscript. I am satisfied with the current version and have no further questions or suggestions.
-
-
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.
**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.
**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 article mentions various applications of generative AI across different industries, but could benefit from more detailed case studies or examples. This would help illustrate the practical implications of the research and make the article more engaging for readers.
-
1. While the article provides a comprehensive overview of the historical development of generative AI, it could benefit from a more critical analysis of the literature. The author could evaluate the strengths and limitations of the different models and approaches discussed, rather than just describing them. This would provide a more balanced and nuanced view of the field.
2. The methodology section is brief and could be expanded to provide more details on how the literature was searched, selected, and analyzed. This would increase the transparency and reproducibility of the review.
3. The article mentions some of the challenges and ethical implications of generative AI, but could go into more depth on these issues. A more comprehensive discussion of the limitations of generative AI would provide a more complete picture of the field.
4. Generative AI for Healthcare, especially in brain data generation, is a hot topic. To attract a much wider readership, authors should give a more extensive review in this field. There are some representative works for this topic:
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1203104;
DOI :10.1109/TCE.2025.3528438;
DOI:10.1109/TPAMI.2024.3442811
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful.
5. The article aims to provide a comprehensive review of generative AI, but could more clearly articulate its contribution to the field. The author could emphasize what new insights or perspectives the article provides and how it advances our understanding of generative AI.
6. There are typos in this version. The English writing should be improved.
When introducing generative artificial intelligence, the article uses language suitable for people from different industries to understand generative AI. However, there are still some problems with this article.
1. There is a significant non-standard phenomenon in the use of abbreviations of professional terms in the article. Currently, only the abbreviation form is marked when the term appears for the first time, and the full name and abbreviation are frequently mixed in the subsequent content.
2. The image clarity in the article is insufficient, the resolution is too low, and the picture is blurred, which affects the reader's understanding of the research content.
3. The table in the article has irregularities in format, content layout, and annotation.
4. The author should pay more attention to the research in the past three years, including the research in 2025, which may make readers more aware of the recent progress.
The conclusion is well organized. Please provide suggestions for the future development of generative AI from a broader perspective.
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.