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 August 24th, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on September 13th, 2021.
  • The first revision was submitted on September 23rd, 2021 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on October 6th, 2021.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Oct 6, 2021 · Academic Editor

Accept

The manuscript requires careful proofreading to correct the typos.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Although the Academic Editor is happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing. Therefore, if you can identify further edits, please work with our production group to address them while in proof stage #]

·

Basic reporting

Great improvement. The article is well written, well structure and I believe the level of novelty is good. I really don't see anything especially to comment and I rather accept it within the current form.

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

no comment

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The authors have carefully revised the manuscript according to previous reviewers' feedback.

Experimental design

Improved to the expected quality.

Validity of the findings

Improved to the expected quality.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Sep 13, 2021 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Kindly address the comments suggested.

[# 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 copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]

[# 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/ #]

·

Basic reporting

In this paper, a new image-to-image translation framework using conditional GANs is proposed, which can generate diverse photorealistic images from limited edge features after training with a small number of training images.The article has a certain degree of innovation and novelty, the experiment is relatively sufficient, and the overall content is complete, but there are still some problems that the author hopes to correct:
1)Whether the pictures involved in the article can be directly reflected in the text to facilitate reading and understanding;
2)The quality of the picture is not very high, it is recommended to replace it, and some of the picture content is redundant, and it is recommended to delete it;
3)Figure 16 compares the KID and FID values of different methods within 500 sheets, and the difference between the results of the other two methods and the method in this article is getting smaller and smaller. Can the author compare more images, or briefly Explain the change trend of subsequent FID and KID results;

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

no comment

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

It is better to include a paragraph providing details about the structure of the paper (could be the last paragraph of the Introduction section).

The related work section is very comprehensive (good work!). Include some details of additional image data augmentation works would further improve the related work section.

Indicate potential future works of this research in the conclusion section.

Experimental design

Structuring the methods section is very important to enhance the readability of the paper. It is better to include individual subsections to three major parts of the proposed method.

Lack of supportive arguments is the primary concern in the results section. Authors will get benefitted by including a comprehensive discussion on both qualitative and quantitative results.

An ablative study is a must in this case to express the significance of each module.

Validity of the findings

Highlight the limitations of the work is important for researchers in the field to explore more in this domain of interest. Discuss some of them in the results section.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

There contains grammatical errors and typos in the manuscript. The authors should re-check and revise carefully.

Experimental design

The research question is well defined. Methods are described in full detail.

Validity of the findings

The findings are valid, and can be easily replicated.

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.