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 July 29th, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on November 7th, 2021.
  • The first revision was submitted on January 13th, 2022 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on March 15th, 2022 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on April 1st, 2022.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· Apr 1, 2022 · Academic Editor

Accept

Congratulations on the acceptance of your paper.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Paula Soares, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

All previous concerns have been addressed.
A table containing all abbreviations should be added.

Experimental design

The corrections have been done as per requirement.

Validity of the findings

The impact and novelty has been properly presented

Version 0.2

· Feb 16, 2022 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

You are required to address the concerns of the reviewer.

[# 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) #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

1.All the previous concerns have been addressed except usage of abbreviations in abstract.
2. English should be corrected.Grammatical errors like "At present, there is no effective quantum solution exists to 26 process multiple patterns." should be corrected.
3.In "Motivation and contribution of work" a point is given as follows:
Existing

Experimental design

1.In Proof of Theorem 1 what does 't' stand for.

Validity of the findings

In the Results Section, observations are given Table wise, instead the findings that they emphasize should be given as headings and relevant Tables should be included under them.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Nov 7, 2021 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Please incorporate the comments of the reviewers.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial 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. #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Avoid using abbreviations in abstract unless it’s a time complexity.
Please provide a table for all the abbreviations.
Please merge the Prior work and Important Findings and Related work section into one section.

Experimental design

Theorem 1 and 2 are defined twice. It should be defined once only in the proposed methodology section.

Validity of the findings

The Section- ‘Simulation detail and analysis with algorithms evaluation criteria’ should be added as a subsection within Results and Discussions.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The article claims to proposes an efficient quantum solutions for exact multiple pattern matching to process the biological sequences. It appears that a lot of effort has been made in writing the article for presenting the solution through complexity analysis of algorithm. Pl. refer to the attachment.

Experimental design

Experimental Design is weak due to limitation of current hardware technology so cannot be basis of a publication. Further, Grover's search can overshoot if the number of solutions are not known in advance, which is going to be the case when t exact pattern matches are not known, so how are you going to handle such cases while performing simulation. Ideally there should be table for depicting numerical values of variables like N, m, t etc. along with constants C etc. and performances in time and space rather than equations. Further Table 11 and 12 should also report on the number or percentage of patterns correctly identified, incorrectly identified and incorrectly missed etc.

Validity of the findings

The article claims to proposes an efficient quantum solutions for exact multiple pattern matching to process the biological sequences. It appears that a lot of effort has been made in writing the article for presenting the solution through complexity analysis of algorithm. The article claims to find all

Additional comments

This work should be divided into two parts viz., theoretical and application part with simulations giving details on experimental accuracy of the proposed algorithm.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

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.