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.
We appreciate your work considering the comments and concerns of all reviewers.
OK
OK
OK
Authors have incorporated the suggested changes.
Author did good effort in updating paper according to comments.
Author also highlighted changes in the paper through submitting track changes file.
Author's response to comments in detail.
The experimental design is satisfactory.
The flaws are removed in revised version.
The focus is on real time problem solving. This is a validity of the finding by the author.
The paper is in good shape after required changes.
The authors are advised to carefully address all the comments and concerns mentioned by all reviewers with their revised version.
[# 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 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/ #]
Needs thororugh proof read
OK
Can be enhanced further. The novelty and impact requires elaboration.
The work Towards a component-based system model to
improve the quality of highly configurable systems
is the current work and better presented in most of the aspects.
However, authors can further improve their work in the following sections,
1. The abstract can be improved with the significance of the results.
2. The introduction requires modification such as being concise.
3. Further authors may elaborate on the research contribution in the introduction.
4. Provided literature is better but authors may add a bit more on the literature.
5. The proposed framework is not readable easily.
6. Authors may elaborate about the data set they used.
7. A few of the references need attention to complete the required information.
8. Few sentences need careful attention, they are required to be rephrased such as " Hence, results show that the easy of ease of understanding and adaptability, required effort, high-quality achievement,
and version management is significantly improved i.e., more the 50 per cent as compared
to exiting method i.e., less than 50 per cent"
9. Please carefully check the sentence structure " da Silva et al. [35] presented a
185 new ability-based approach for scoping the product line details".
10. Few references are not relevant like 39, 40.
11. Authors please carefully use words Hypotheses and Hypothesis.
The paper presents a Component-Based System Model to Improve the Quality of Highly Configurable Systems to support IT-related organizations. The paper is very well written and interesting concept. Following suggestions would be incorporated to Improve the quality of paper.
1. There are few unusual long statements that may exceed three lines. A thoroughly English language revision is a must, where many English language, spelling errors, grammar and punctuation errors are found.
2. The Abstract should clarify the evaluation criteria of the Component-Based System Model and the main findings and results of the evaluation quantitatively.
3. The suggested title should be clear and enlightening, and should reflect the aim and approach of the study.
4. A section should be added between the introduction and proposed model sections to clarify and emphasize the main contributions and its scientific justification and applicability, in this study.
5. There are some grammatical and typo mistakes of English in paper and need some minor adjustments.
6. There are some formatting issues in caption of figures and tables, please address them.
7. Enhance the pictures’ size for better presentation and readability.
satisfactory
Done in a better way
The “Research Problem” section must be under the heading of Introduction for better understanding of the proposed research.
“Literature Study” section is not exhaustive to narrate existing work in the identified domain so it is better to include 2 or 3 more paragraphs including their references.
Include more references focusing on highly configurable systems through software product line.
The author work is good. The abstract covers the complete paper. Author provided detail background of the work. Author also focused on the related literature. Author produced required figures and tables which are necessary for the explanation of the work.
The author work is related to the scope of the journal. Author introduced valid research gaps and later on the findings are adding to the domain of knowledge. Author design methodology in detail and each component is well explained.
The data and processes claimed by the author are valid and according to domain of the work. The result is verified statistically using different statistical tools.
The author concluded work in detail. The conclusion also providing readers a thinking about future work in this research direction.
Some comments given below which should be addressed in the final submission.
1) Correct spelling exiting into existing Line 28 and line 30
2) Author should adopt one method, i.e. either use abbreviation and full text for all or only use abbreviation except first time. For example, SPLE, HCS, QeAPLE etc.
3) Complete sentence at line 90. State-of-the-art ….. what next?
4) Author should read full paper for required English grammar corrections.
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.