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.
The revision process is now finished and independent Reviewers recommend your paper for further processing, therefore I am pleased to forward your paper to the editorial office with a positive recommendation.
The authors took into account my suggestions in the article so I have no objections.
Everything is fine.
I have no objections.
In my opinion, the article should be accepted.
Thank you for taking my comments into account, the current version of the paper is, in my opinion, ready to be accepted.
The experimental design has no significant flaws.
The validity of the findings has no significant flaws.
Dear Authors, Reviewers suggest changes to your paper by solving important issues. Please revise it and return to us with revisions for further processing.
The article is written carefully, but I think there are some corrections that can be made. Figure 2 is very good, but the blocks (A,B,C,D,E) could be marked with soft rectangles.
In the caption of Fig 2 you write "(e)" but I thing should be "(E)"
Adapt the size of figures and tables to the size of the pages.
The equations (6),(7), (9), (10) and (11) are the same. Similarly, the equation (13), (14), (16-19) are also the same. In both cases define the formula only once and note that the other probabilities are equal.
The authors of the article provide an interesting proposal for a sorting algorithm for streaming data on a uniprocessor constrained by a limited storage size. In my opinion, the article can be accepted after editorial corrections.
The article is clearly written and transparent so I have no critical comments.
Do you see any possibilities to improve this algorithm?
List possible practical applications of this algorithm when it is better than others.
The article prepared by the authors is professionally written and presented in a good way. I recommend only small changes to improve the transparency of the article and to show the advantages of the created solution.
The design of the experiment does not contain any major errors.
This article does not compare enough with other similar solutions to this problem invented by other researchers. Such a comparison should be made, the preferred form is a table, which clearly shows the differences between the responses to this issue.
-Equation (15) needs better formatting.
- All fractions in the text should be changed to the correct way of notation (not containing slash). An example of this is in line 371.
-Figure no. 2 needs to be in higher quality.
- Equations no. (2), (3), (4) should be centered.
-The legends of the graphs in figure 3 must be enlarged or deleted otherwise they are very illegible.
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.