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 authors addressed all issues raised by the reviewer. I now recommend to accept this paper.
The reviewer raised a few minor issues. Please address them in the revised manuscript.
[# 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 #]
- Make sure the Conclusion succinctly summarizes the paper. It should not repeat phrases from the Introduction!
- The authors should further add an explanation about the research method.
NA
There are only 2 studies from 2020 referred in this paper.
- Authors should add the most recent reference:
- Improved VGG Model for Road Traffic Sign Recognition
Dear Authors,
Based on the comments received from the authors and my own observation, I recommend major revisions for the paper.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a response 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 response 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 response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
The abstract is NOT satisfactory because it didn't contain the following parts:
i. The importance of or motivation for the research.
ii. The issue/argument of the research.
iii. The methodology.
iv. The result/findings.
v. The implications of the result/findings.
- Relevant literature review of latest similar research studies on the topic at hand must be discussed
- Please cite each equation and clearly explain its terms.
- What are the evaluations used for the verification of results?
- The procedures and analysis of the data is seen to be unclear.
- The discussion is very important in research paper. Nevertheless, this section is short and should be presented completely.
- Please improve overall readability of the paper.
Authors explain why they used SUS. However, they do not indicate this in the abstract. They must add it to the abstract (mentioning SUS and the open question).
The user validation section (Line 360) should be reorganized for better understanding. First, indicate who the users are (377-380). Second, indicate what was done by users (393-399). Finally, explain how usability was evaluated (368-376 + 385-392).
Although the process is well detailed, I suggest:
+ It would be good to know if participants tried the web or mobile version (Lines 393-399)
+ A more extensive description of the users profile should be added (i.e., age, sex, or any information to know better those who filled out the SUS). (Lines 377-380)
I suggest a more in-depth analysis of the evaluation results, i.e.,
+ is there room for improvement?
+ Was there a difference between the users? (novices vs advanced),
+ Participant 2 sus score was the lowest, why could it happen?
+ Were the participants observed? If yes, then what details did the researchers observe?
Authors present the architecture of a reinforcement environment for learning sign languages. They evaluate the usability of an application (based on the proposed architecture) using SUS. The app is for LESCO.
The proposal is interesting. The contributions are well detailed. Introduction and backgroud sections are fine.
In future studies, I suggest applying questionnaires for UX evaluation (i.e., attrakdiff or UEQ) combined with SUS for a comprehensive evaluation of the tool/app.
.
.
.
• In the Introduction section, the drawbacks of each conventional technique should be described clearly.
• Introduction needs to explain the main contributions of the work more clearly.
• The authors should emphasize the difference between other methods to clarify the position of this work further.
• The Wide ranges of applications need to be addressed in Introductions
• The objective of the research should be clearly defined in the last paragraph of the introduction section.
• Add the advantages of the proposed system in one quoted line for justifying the proposed approach in the Introduction 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.