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 February 3rd, 2025 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on June 12th, 2025.
  • The first revision was submitted on September 3rd, 2025 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on September 20th, 2025 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on October 9th, 2025.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· Oct 9, 2025 · Academic Editor

Accept

Thank you for submitting to PeerJ.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Yilun Shang, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment,

Validity of the findings

no comment

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

-

Experimental design

-

Validity of the findings

-

Additional comments

Thank you for the revision. The modifications and the responses provided are satisfactory.

Version 0.2

· Sep 17, 2025 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please follow the Reviewer #1 comments.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

From the first review, reviewer suggest that author should discuss the OLT terms, since it has been used many times throughout the paper. the OLT terms should be defined early in the proposed method, introduction and earlier part of the paper.
reviewer find this has not been done yet

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

-

Experimental design

-

Validity of the findings

-

Additional comments

Thanks for the revision, the final version of the article and the changes are sufficient.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jun 12, 2025 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Please follow all of the reviewers' comments.

**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.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

-

Experimental design

The related works are quite rigorous. However, some works are not addressed in the proposed method. For example, in the paragraph: "A novel heterogeneous container placement strategy is presented in (Zhong and Buyya, 2020) to enhance the cost efficiency of container orchestration in Kubernetes-based cloud systems. The experiments demonstrated significant cost savings compared to the default Kubernetes framework under various workload patterns. However, their work was not tested under conditions of high service demand", the reviewer did not see any proposed work that attempts to solve the mentioned problem. The proposed work did not mention anything relevant to high service demand.

Validity of the findings

The author mentioned "OLT" in several places in the document, marking its importance. However, in the proposed method and research question, there is no specific part that mentions "OLT" to show its importance. Why is OLT used for evaluation? What is the importance of the OLT, and how is it relevant

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

All comments have been added in detail to the last section.

Experimental design

All comments have been added in detail to the last section.

Validity of the findings

All comments have been added in detail to the last section.

Additional comments

Review Report for PeerJ Computer Science
(An extended container placement mechanism to enhance the efficiency of cloud systems)

1. In this study, an Extended Directed Container Placement (E_DCP) mechanism is proposed to improve resource management and energy efficiency in cloud systems with rapidly increasing numbers of containers, utilizing a multi-objective evaluation score based on the Whale Optimization Algorithm to enhance container placement efficiency.

2. In the introduction section, Containerized based applications, the importance of the subject, and swift advancement of cloud computing are mentioned at a basic level. In this section, the importance of the subject should be explained in more detail and the main contribution of the study to the literature should be stated in detail.

3. In the related works section, the relevant literature is mentioned with its important points. However, in this section, it is suggested to add a literature table in order to emphasize the subject more clearly and to clearly reveal the place of the subject of the study in the literature. After this table, the deficiencies in the literature that this study addresses and its originality should be stated more clearly.

4. The algorithms specified in the Solution Update, Solution Optimization, Solution Initialization and Find Best Solution sections of the study are at a basic level, but they are sufficiently explanatory. In addition, when Proposed Mechanism is evaluated both in itself and compared with the literature, it is suitable and original to a certain extent for the problem solution within the scope of this study.

5. The configurations related to the study and the OLT Results in different Container Types in Homogeneous Data Centers are very sufficient both in terms of type and the values obtained.

In conclusion, this study is of significant quality, but attention should be paid to the sections mentioned above.

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.