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.
Good and timely work. The revisions addressed all comments, as per the suggestions.
Please keep up the good work.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
ok
ok
ok
Modified as per the comments
Good work with the revisions. Just a few more changed are required, particularly for language, clarity and motivations.
[# 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) #]
1. Found a few Spelling Mistakes in the paper
2. literature is not there
3. the Problem: If there was no problem, there would be no reason for writing
a manuscript, and definitely no reason for reading it. So, please tell
readers why they should proceed with reading. Experience shows that for this part
a few lines are often sufficient.
ok
good
Authors have addressed all my concerns from my previous review
Authors have addressed all my concerns from my previous review
Authors have addressed all my concerns from my previous review
Dear Authors,
Good work but there are a few points which must be addressed to improve the quality of your article.
The experimental results must be analyzed - a comparison in table format could be a useful addition.
The results should be clearly summarized.
Remove grammatical and spelling errors from the analysis section and introduction section.
Along with the above please address the reviewers' comments in your Minor Revision.
Thanks
Prof. M. Nageswara Rao
Academic Editor, PeerJ Computer Science
[# 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/ #]
The importance of the application domain should be shortly mentioned and emphasized in the abstract.
The study being retrospective and no independent assessor for the outcome would carry great bias in different issues including selection and exclusion of patients and outcome assessment.
In each part, in the experimental results and analysis section, before giving the driven conclusions, the results should be summarized, explaining what is given in Table, column, row, etc. This is necessary, so that the reader can validate the outcomes obtained.
Include more technical discussions on the observations would strengthen the paper's contribution.
The comparison is not fair to verify the proposed method. Include more technical discussions on the observations would strengthen the paper's contribution.
More recent references should also be included: Only 3 out of 25 cited papers are published in the last 5 years.
Language, grammar errors need to be addressed and add latest references.
The study being retrospective and no independent assessor for the outcome would carry great bias in different issues including selection and exclusion of patients and outcome assessment.
1. extracting 30 features what are those and not explained properelly
architecture is not available. if possible add it
good
NO
The article flows well. However, there are several grammatical and spelling errors in the submission. Please ensure you correct them.
The datasets used in the paper should be further defined so that the reader understands different nuances involved in it. In the current state, the paper only describes the datasets in couple of sentences.
I am fine with the methods used. Please include the majority class baseline for your models in table 4.
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.