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 October 30th, 2020 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on November 16th, 2020.
  • The first revision was submitted on December 22nd, 2020 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on January 22nd, 2021 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on January 22nd, 2021.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· Jan 22, 2021 · Academic Editor

Accept

This paper can be accepted.

Version 0.2

· Jan 6, 2021 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

The authors have tried to answer most of the questions. The name and surname of some references are not correct. Please check them.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

This reviewer would like to thank the authors for their effort in clarifying and modifying this paper. I have no other questions. I suggest that the paper is accepted for publication.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Nov 16, 2020 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

This paper needs further revision.

[# 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 #]

[# 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/ #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

1. The writing of the paper (e.g. grammar, tense) should be improved to make it more professional.
2. Some references on related works including gait recognition and quality assessment are suggested to be added for sufficient field background.
[1] Xianye Ben, Peng Zhang, Zhihui Lai, Rui Yan, Xinliang Zhai, Weixiao Meng. A general tensor representation framework for cross-view gait recognition, Pattern Recognition, vol. 90, pp. 87-98, 2019.
[2] Lei Chen and Jiying Zhao, No-reference perceptual quality assessment of stereoscopic images based on binocular visual characteristics, Signal Processing: Image Communication, vol. 76, pp. 1-10, 2019.
3. The format of references should be indentical, e.g. Line 332 and Line 340.

Experimental design

Many important details are missing in the experimental design. For instance, how many dataset (or proportion) is used for training or testing? Some parameters of Adam optimizer are also not provided.

Validity of the findings

1. For the compared methods, Are the results obtained from the corresponding papers or conducted in your experiments, which need to be clarified.
2. More explanations or analysis should be added for performance comparion, instead of just listing the results.

Additional comments

The paper proposed an efficient video face recognition based on frame selection and
quality assessment. There are several issues to be addressed based on the comments.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Your method needs more detail. I suggest that you improve the description of the proposed method to your research more clear to readers

Experimental design

Experiment is Ok.

Validity of the findings

This article has certain innovation.

Additional comments

The authors train the lightweight CNN (“FaceQNet mobile”) for face quality analysis by distilling the knowledge of the FaceQNet ResNet-50 model. The reported experiments demonstrate the performance of the proposed method. My comments are as follows:
1. The innovation of this paper is not clear and it is difficult for readers to understand the main contributions of this paper. This part should be added in Introduction section.
2. In the proposed framework (Figure 3), which part is the method proposed by the authors?
3. In Figure 1, what is teacher model? and what is Student model?
4. Some details of the proposed method are not clearly described in the paper.

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.