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.
Thanks for your interest in PeerJ computer science.
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comments
Thanks for adding the subheadings
Thanks for correcting all the sentences.
--
I am sorry for the delay. It has been hard to get reviews back in time due to a variety of reasons. One reviewer was in general happy with your paper but the other reviewer had substantial suggestion to improve the quality of the paper. Please follow the advice and submit the updated paper at your earliest convenience. Thanks for your interest in the journal.
[# 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/ #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
Overall, the paper is written well and provides a good survey.
This article really does an interesting job of reviewing three essential aspects of a computing device namely logic, memory and interconnect. Mentioning when the survey was conducted (Sept 2019) is impressive as future readers will get to know the state-of-art till that period. The introduction section provided enough background
It is quite difficult to follow the text in the three sections. It would be very beneficial to readers to put subheadings in each of logic, memory and interconnect sections. A figure/table/chart in the introduction section which summarizes the entire paper would be very beneficial to the readers. An example would be:
1) Logic
i)....
ii)....
2) Memory
i)....
ii)....
It is not clear what is the difference between this review article and other ones. It is worth mentioning the key differences with other surveys for each section (logic, memory, interconnect).
Figures looks convincing and depicts the content mentioned in different sections
The review is conducted in a very narrow space with a few details about each subspace. Few jargons like cryptocurrency syndrome are not quite clear.
Few suggestions to improve the paper: Avoid short (4-5 word) sentences and combine with the immediate ones. This article requires significant changes in terms of writing, clearing grammatical mistakes, and prepositions in sentences like: 1) only simulation, then we draw - incorrect sentence 2) In fact, a better way is reusing, instead of automating. Reuse is a bit easier than automation - two same sentences here are redundant
This paper definitely has a positive impact from a reader stand point as it summarized the different aspect of hardware design. The conclusion reflects the introduction and the future directions to explore in each component. It is within the scope of the goals initially set by the authors.
Limited future work and scope is mentioned in the paper which does not give a big picture to the readers to move forward. For example, the paper mentions that the introduction of 3D RAM solves the scaling problem, but does not provide other directions to explore for the researchers to continue in this field.
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.