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 paper is accepted based on the recommendation of the reviewer.
The authors have pay attention to all the advice. Suggest to publish.
The paper is original and fitful for the journal. The author has respond to all the advices.
This paper is validity and provide novel contributions to the field. The authors have made all the adjustment required.
The author has respond to all the advices. Suggest to publish.
Revise the manuscript following the suggestions and comments of the reviewer.
It can be seen that after the modification, the language level and quality of this paper have been improved.But in our opinion, this paper still has some small shortcomings that need to be revised.
1. The "Abstract" part of the paper needs to be condensed.Too much technical background.
2. This paper has introduced many references in the "Introduction" section, but I think what should be introduced is the relationship between these literatures and your research, rather than simply listing the work done by these literatures.
3. The quality of Figure 5 needs to be improved.It is suggested that the meaning of each curve be intuitively expressed in the picture.
I hope the author can seriously modify the article and polish the language in the article. After the quality is further improved, it can be considered for publication.
no comment
no comment
no comment
Revise the manuscript following the suggestions and comments of the reviewers.
[# 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 [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
1. Please double-check the grammar and language to make sure the delivery is clear, such as the sentence at line 43 – 45 needs to rearrange.
2. Please double-check the grammar, lots of Singular nouns are missing their articles.
3. Check the line number; the line numbers are break after line 122.
a. The dataset introduction should be in the method part, which would give the audience a clearer idea of how the experiment is designed.
b. Please give justifications for the selection of the datasets. Is it the only available one, or is there a reason that this specific dataset is selected? Is it based on the property of the dataset or based on the method?
c. If you are using F-score as an estimation for the performance, please explain how they work and the possible merit and drawback of using F-score as an estimation method other than other methods?
d. Please give a more detailed description and comparison of results from different methods and from different epochs. Is this outcome your prediction, and what are the possible causes for the difference between results? It is not presented clearly in this paper how the different methods would impact the F1 Score.
This data and results in this paper are robust and sound. However, the justification of why this dataset is brought into use needs to be clearer.
The idea of the paper is sound and need be investigated more however few suggestions are there .
1 abstract needs to be rewritten with respect to findings
2 add latest literature in this area
3 evaluation of proposed method is not clear therefore authors need to provide confusion matrix to understand the recognition rate of the system.
Therefore I recommend to accept the paper after incorporating above comments
Experiments need to be explained more
Need to justify the results with latest literature
Authors are suggested to proof read from native English speaker
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.