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 has been Accepted for publication. Congratulations!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Keith Crandall, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
All the revisions were done
All the revisions were done
All the revisions were done
I can find that all my comments were updated in the revised manuscript
The manuscript is revised based on my previous comments
The manuscript is revised based on my previous comments
The manuscript is revised based on my previous comments
The manuscript is revised based on my previous comments. All the revisions were done.
Consider all the reviewers' comments and revise the manuscript accordingly.
[# 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/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
This manuscript proposes a novel methodology for segmenting the covid-19 infections This manuscript is written well.
Read the paper carefully to remove the typos and grammatical errors
Some sentences are not understandable to the reviewers Example :Summary of CT scan segmentation methods in COVID-19 application based on deep learning in this paper.
This line has grammatical error
The authors has to explain what are the features extracted for the purpose of segmentation?
Figure 15.Visual comparison of the segmentation results of COVID-19 lung infection should be explained
Check the performance measure as it confuses the reviewers. Make it more clear in the abstract
Experimental results were satisfactory. But in the abstract , the performance measure is mentioned as 80% where ares in the MS, it is different. Check this throughout the MS
Results were clearly explained
Reviewers were in dilemma to validate the accuracy since the proposed methodology has many metrics used to validate the accuracy..
The supplementary files should be executable so that the reviewers can validate the results since this works belongs to Covid-19. Python files were not sufficient.
Submit the coding as Matlab file so that the reviewers can validate the proposed methodology and its accuracy
Findings were good. But different types of results were confusing the reviewers.
Arrange all the results in its appropriate sections.
A thorough experiment is done
Reviewers has to validate the proposed methodology via the Coding
All the data were provided. Provide the Matlab coding as supplementary file
This manuscript proposes a novel methodology for segmenting the covid-19 infections This manuscript is written well.
Read the paper carefully to remove the typos and grammatical errors
Some sentences are not understandable to the reviewers Example :Summary of CT scan segmentation methods in COVID-19 application based on deep learning in this paper.
This line has grammatical error
The authors has to explain what are the features extracted for the purpose of segmentation?
Figure 15.Visual comparison of the segmentation results of COVID-19 lung infection should be explained
the performance measure is mentioned as 80% where ares in the MS, it is different. Check this throughout the MS
Check the performance measure as it confuses the reviewers. Make it more clear in the abstract
Submit the coding as Matlab file so that the reviewers can validate the proposed methodology and its accuracy.
Arrange the results accordingly.
The topic and manuscript appears interesting theoretically and in terms of results, however the paper requires improvements in terms of the following comments:
1) The main manuscript should be checked for typos
2) The results, should be better detailed in one section so that it can be easily refereed as well as understandable to the readers.
3) There were more results and it should be validated by the reviewers.
4) The executable program of the proposed methodology should must be presented as supplementary file. Change the current file format.
5) The validation would be better supported if you would add the executable programs and also with some image datasets.
6) Transitions from section to section should be smoother. Intermediate results can be changed to the results and discussion section.
Experiments were performed well. Research question is well defined.
Methods were described well
The findings were novel
All the data related to the validity is provided
Conclusions are well stated
1) The main manuscript should be checked for typos
2) The results, should be better detailed in one section so that it can be easily refereed as well as understandable to the readers.
3) The executable program of the proposed methodology should must be presented as supplementary file. Change the current file format.
5) The validation would be better supported if you would add the executable programs and also with some image datasets.
6) Transitions from section to section should be smoother. Intermediate results can be changed to the results and discussion section.
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.