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 Author,
Your paper has been accepted for publication in PEERJ Computer Science. Thank you for your fine contribution.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Claudio Ardagna, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Comments have been addressed
-
This method is reliable, rapid, and useful for prediction. There are no new suggestions.
The manuscript has been revised as per my comments and suggestions.
After carefully considering the reviews and assessing your manuscript, I am pleased to inform you that we would like to invite you to revise and resubmit your manuscript for further consideration. The reviewers have provided constructive comments that will help strengthen your work. Please address each of these points thoroughly in your revised manuscript. Additionally, ensure that you provide a detailed response letter outlining how you have addressed each comment raised by the reviewers. This will help the reviewers and myself to evaluate the changes made to the manuscript.
[# 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. #]
The manuscript lacks proper English, so it is highly advised to have the proofreading completed by professional services or fluent English support speakers.
Extend introduction section by adding latest updates.
Several terms in the Formal results do not include the definitions of the terms used in the equations and theorems.
It is highly recommended that these formulae be updated with proper terms and meanings.
The experimental setup needs more elaboration of the terms used in the article for the readers to understand the paper more clearly.
The methodology must be explained in a more detailed way to help the reader understand the parallel recognition approach in the given study.
Several new citations and references from recent research articles should be included in the manuscript.
The novelty of research by the authors should be proved by a comparative study.
Highlight the applications and utility of the work.
The figure quality is very bad. it should be improved in the revised version. for example; Figure 2, figure 8 etc.
The English grammar should be polished in the revised version.
There are so many unnecessary paragraph break in all paper. Please correct this issue by following journal guidelines.
The abstract should be revised. The abstract is insufficient in terms of containing proposed system, results and key findings.
The majority of the Information about the general structure of the study is complex and insufficient.
The conclusion section should be revised and supported with the implications and future work.
The motivation, contribution, and benefits should be the part of introduction section currently it is not given in the introduction section.
You should add in abstract and introduction section how your research is different from others?
The explanation of each equation should be mentioned, currently mostly equations lack it.
There is no detail of simulation environment, parameters given.
How are the parameters used for algorithms determined? Has a Preliminary Study been conducted? Or do they take from another paper? They need to be more clear about that.
The effects of the results of the study need to be analyzed in detail.
On what basis was the performance evaluation made? What metrics were used? Why is only the accuracy rate shown? There is no detailed information about these.
The conclusion section is very inadequate. The results of such a study need to be better conveyed to the reader.
The authors should add a discussion section. Please add the discussion part before the conclusion section. please mention the key findings of your study.
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.