Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: GENE ONTOLOGY CAPSULE GAN: AN IMPROVED ARCHITECTURE FOR PROTEIN FUNCTION PREDICTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript has been studied thoroughly and some recommendations for the authors are suggested , which are listed below:
1.	In Figure 2, the author mentions a 9*9 input sequence in the detail design of the capsule network; nevertheless, the protein sequence is just one dimension.  Please clarify this uncertainty.
2.	Why did the authors use a capsule network at the GOCAPGAN discriminator level but not in the generator?
3.	Figure 3 was not cited in the paper by the authors.
4.	The authors mention in line 232 that they would consider an example of a disassembled boat, yet no visual picture of the boat is offered.
Experimental design: All necessary details regarding experiments are already provided in a manuscript.
Validity of the findings: The results reported by the author are aligned with the methodology discussed in a research article.
Additional comments: No Additional Comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: GENE ONTOLOGY CAPSULE GAN: AN IMPROVED ARCHITECTURE FOR PROTEIN FUNCTION PREDICTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is self-contained and is written very well.
Experimental design: The work is an extension of authors original work published earlier. The research questions are well defined and the proposed framework is described with sufficient details.
Validity of the findings: Numerous experiments are carried out to validate the findings. Publicly available datasets were used in the study.
Additional comments: The manuscript gives an improved concept of the author original work GOGAN. The authors introduced capsule network in GAN which lead to significant improvement in results. The improved technique was named GOCAPGAN. Introduction of the article contains all the important details and problem statement is given properly. The paper has already elaborated in detail that how utilization of capsule network can improve the results. Literature review is done in detail; methodology is written in such a way that it can easily be reproducible. Relevant tables and figures have been given. Conclusion and discussion properly relate the given solution with limitations in existing techniques. The grammar of the paper is in publishable form.
Some minor modifications are given below:
1- As mentioned in the paper GOCAPGAN is an extension of GOGAN, however there are many similarities between GOCAPGAN and GOGAN, so it is suggested to update some content of GOCAPGAN.
2- How the values of Table 2 and Table 3 were achieved?
3- In results, what is the difference between Table 4 and Table 5?


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: GENE ONTOLOGY CAPSULE GAN: AN IMPROVED ARCHITECTURE FOR PROTEIN FUNCTION PREDICTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors have researched and written GOCAPGAN articles whose primary objective is to predict protein functions using GANs. They have used residual blocks, standard CNN, and capsule networks in the GANs. The improved technique works better in results and the number of classes. The reviews of each section are given below:
Abstract: The abstract of the submitted research paper is brief and displays all of the study article's material. The abstract is well organized, and it reports all of the findings.
Introduction: The introduction is done correctly. The introduction begins with a protein overview, an explanation of protein functions, and a demonstration of the sequence-structure gap. What is the difference between GAN (with CNN) and GAN (with Capsule), and how does it solves your prediction problem?

Literature Review: The writers conducted a study to compile background information and utilized current research articles to support the problem indicated in the introduction, however, include one or two recent literature reviews to complete it.
Experimental design: Methodology: The authors have described their technique in depth. The method gives information for the proposed model provided in figures and tables. The presented method in this work can be easily reproducible from the images and details shown. However, the authors did not cite Figure 3 in the article.
Validity of the findings: Results: The authors have supplied complete details regarding the dataset and hyperparameters. The authors performed rigorous testing and used different evaluation metrics and extensive testing. The source code of the implemented solution is available on GitHub. The authors need to explain why they did not include a hamming loss in Table 4.
Additional comments: Discussion: The problem statement in the introduction is linked to the results, and the findings support the recommended solution to the problem.

Conclusion: The conclusion gives a summary of the significant points throughout the article and supports the author’s claims
The paper structure is sound and written in an acceptable way. The quality of the English written in the research paper is satisfactory for publication.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: GENE ONTOLOGY CAPSULE GAN: AN IMPROVED ARCHITECTURE FOR PROTEIN FUNCTION PREDICTION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is written in English and is clear, unambiguous, technically correct text. The article conforms to professional standards of courtesy and expression.

The article has sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. Relevant prior literature is appropriately referenced.
Experimental design: Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Additional comments: All suggested changes are incorporated in updated article. The article meets the PeerJ criteria and should be accepted as is.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: GENE ONTOLOGY CAPSULE GAN: AN IMPROVED ARCHITECTURE FOR PROTEIN FUNCTION PREDICTION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed all of my concerns. I have no further comments.
Experimental design: Research questions are well defined and rigorous investigation has been performed.
Validity of the findings: Results are validated on publicly available datasets. Code and datasets are provided on the GitHub.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: GENE ONTOLOGY CAPSULE GAN: AN IMPROVED ARCHITECTURE FOR PROTEIN FUNCTION PREDICTION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I am happy with the comments of round 1 being incorporated. The manuscript is relevant to the journal scope and has significant contributions—no further suggestion from my side. Therefore, I propose to accept it.
Experimental design: Comments of round 1 are incorporated—no further changes are required from my side.
Validity of the findings: Comments of round 1 are incorporated—no further changes are required from my side.
Additional comments: Comments of round 1 are incorporated—no further changes are required from my side.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A GENETIC ALGORITHM-BASED ENERGY-AWARE MULTI-HOP CLUSTERING SCHEME FOR HETEROGENEOUS WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper proposes a genetic algorithm-based energyaware multi-hop clustering (GA-EMC) scheme for heterogeneous WSNs (HWSNs). In HWSNs, all the nodes have varying initial energy and typically have an energy consumption restriction. A genetic algorithm determines the optimal CHs and their positions in the network. The fitness of chromosomes is calculated in terms of distance, optimal CHs, and the node's residual energy. Multi-hop communication improves energy efficiency in HWSNs. The areas near the sink are deployed with more supernodes far away from the sink to solve the hot spot problem in WSNs near the sink node. Results. Simulation results proclaim that the GA-EMC scheme achieves a more extended network lifetime, network stability and minimises delay than existing approaches in heterogeneous nature.
 Detailed comments are as follow:
(1) MAC protocol has an important impact on network performance, and it is also an important research content of clustering networks. Therefore, I strongly suggest that the author discuss the recent MAC protocol in the relevant work. For example: A parallel joint optimized relay selection protocol for wake-up radio enabled WSNs," Physical Communication, vol. 47, 101320, august 2021.
(2) Some problems have been addressed by the authors, the reviewer strongly suggests that the theoretical analysis of the system performance should be added to improve the quality of this paper.The author can found such work in:"heoretical analysis of the lifetime and energy hole in cluster based Wireless Sensor Networks[J],Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 2011,71(10):1327-1355."
(3) Authors are suggested to review more new and relevant research to support their research contribution.Many references in this paper are the work of more than 10 years ago.
(4) I suggest that the author set up real experiments to test the performance of the prposed protocol.
(5) The formulas in the text is incorrectly formatted，which should be align with the words instead of being upper than the words.
(6) In fact, the work of this paper has been studied in many previous works. I also believe that the work done by the author is effective. However, the innovation of the paper is not strong, and almost all the work done in the paper can be found in the previous work. However, the author gives a PSO algorithm in detail, which can be used as a reference for relevant work. Therefore, it is suggested to give the author a chance to modify it to improve the quality of the paper.
Experimental design: Please see the "Basic reporting".
Validity of the findings: Please see the "Basic reporting".
Additional comments: Please see the "Basic reporting".


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A GENETIC ALGORITHM-BASED ENERGY-AWARE MULTI-HOP CLUSTERING SCHEME FOR HETEROGENEOUS WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this paper, a genetic algorithm-based energy-aware multi-hop clustering (GA-EMC) scheme for heterogeneous WSNs (HWSNs) is proposed. Genetic algorithm determines the optimal CHs and their positions in the network. The fitness of chromosomes is calculated in terms of distance, optimal CHs, and the node's residual energy. Multi-hop communication improves energy
efficiency in HWSNs. Simulation results proclaim that the GA-EMC scheme achieves a more extended network lifetime, network stability and minimises delay than existing approaches in heterogeneous nature. This work is much meaningful, my comments are as follows:
1) Energy-efficient hierarchical clustering on IoT/WSNs is a very well-studied area with a lot of previous studies and over saturated. Therefore, there needs to be a very strong motivation and justification for the proposed approach not to repeat the previous contributions.
2) Given that there are tons of works in WSNs research, the related work should be written in such a way that the reader can see the differences of works in a Table and grasp the main assumptions/disadvantages of other approaches. In literature review, it is very important to summarize the advantages and disadvantages of existing work.
3) This work uses GA to optimize the energy consumption in WSNs, which have been deeply studied so far. Hence, the analysis in the paper on WSNs with GA is necessary, the following article is also appropriate choices:
[1] X.-Y. Zhang, J. Zhang, Y.-J. Gong, Z.-H. Zhan, W.-N. Chen, and Y. Li, “Kuhn–Munkres parallel genetic algorithm for the set cover problem
and its application to large-scale wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 695–710, Oct. 2016.
[2] Y. Chang, X. Yuan, B. Li, D. Niyato, N. Al-Dhahir, "A Joint Unsupervised Learning and Genetic Algorithm Approach for Topology Control in Energy-Efficient Ultra-Dense Wireless Sensor Networks", Communications Letters IEEE, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 2370-2373, 2018.
[3] Y. Chang, X. Yuan, B. Li, D. Niyato, and N. Al-Dhahir, Machinelearning-based parallel genetic algorithms for multi-objective optimization in ultra-reliable low-latency WSNs, IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 4913–4926, 2019.
4) There can be the situation that some CHs are overloaded as they may have many nearby CMs. It might be good to state how this issue can be avoided. In addition, how to formulate the fitness in the optimization process?
Experimental design: The simulation workload is enough, but the comparison algorithm needs to be added.
Validity of the findings: Need enhancement.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A GENETIC ALGORITHM-BASED ENERGY-AWARE MULTI-HOP CLUSTERING SCHEME FOR HETEROGENEOUS WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall the paper is well-presented and clearly written in professional, unambiguous language. The topic has much significance. The novelty of the work and the contributions are clearly reported. I commend the authors for their technical correctness, extensive experimentation, and analysis. The performance of the proposed work has been compared with the state-of-the-art approaches which establish the validity of the proposed protocol. However, the authors are suggested to take into account the following issues for further improvement:
1.	The introduction contains mostly older references. Hence, the authors are suggested to include a few recent research in this section.
2.	The authors could present the existing research regarding multi-hop clustering schemes in WSNs according to the timeline so that a thorough gap analysis could be made.
3.	The authors could list the frequently used symbols with their meaning in a table for convenience.
4.	The authors are suggested to go through the entire manuscript thoroughly to correct grammatical mistakes.
Experimental design: 1.	What is the complexity of the proposed algorithm to execute it at runtime?
2.	As mentioned in the text, the implementation of the proposed protocol would require a few additional control packet exchanges such as CH advertisement, JOIN message, control packets for next-hop CH selection, etc. It would be appreciable if a comprehensive analysis of control packet overhead for executing the proposed protocol at runtime is presented.
3.	It would be better if the input and the output of the proposed GA-based Clustering Algorithm are also mentioned in the algorithm presentations
4.	The authors could provide further details regarding experimental setup such as the transmission power used, the initial energy of the advanced nodes and supernodes, the radio model used, the transceiver used, etc.
5.	What is the mode of operation of the proposed cluster selection technique? Does every node or any dedicated node will execute the GA-based Clustering Algorithm at runtime?
Validity of the findings: 1.	The authors could illustrate why the proposed protocol outperforms the existing works while explaining the findings of the experiments.
2.	The sink positions could be included in Figure 8 for a better understanding of the findings. The authors may also give a separate plot for analyzing the performance of the proposed protocol for different sink positions.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A GENETIC ALGORITHM-BASED ENERGY-AWARE MULTI-HOP CLUSTERING SCHEME FOR HETEROGENEOUS WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed my concern and it can be accepted now.
Experimental design: The authors have addressed my concern and it can be accepted now.
Validity of the findings: The authors have addressed my concern and it can be accepted now.
Additional comments: The authors have addressed my concern and it can be accepted now.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A GENETIC ALGORITHM-BASED ENERGY-AWARE MULTI-HOP CLUSTERING SCHEME FOR HETEROGENEOUS WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript  is good writing.
Experimental design: Good.
Validity of the findings: The proposed algorithm is enough innovative.
Additional comments: I agree the responds from authors.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A GENETIC ALGORITHM-BASED ENERGY-AWARE MULTI-HOP CLUSTERING SCHEME FOR HETEROGENEOUS WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This revised paper is much better now. But it needs major revision due to the following reasons.
1. Please strictly follow this journal template, like alignment, section number etc.

2. Please cite reference papers with increasing references order.

3. In the related works part, it is not suggested to mention each reference paper with 1-2 setences, which is not meaningful.
It is suggested to firstly classfy them into several types and then give explanation about their own work (uniqueness).

4. All tables and figures are missiong in the main pdf file.

5. All the symbols are not alligned well.

6. Please change "Where" to "where" and move it to the front on certain line below certain equations.

7. Acknowledgements part is missing.

8. Reference part is weak, and ref. 93 is missing. There are too many so-so references, which is not necessary.
And more relevant papers about " energy efficiency and optimization for WSN" is suggested like below.
--A PSO based Energy Efficient Coverage Control Algorithm for Wireless Sensor Networks, Computers Materials & Continua，vol.56, no.3, pp.433-446, 2018.
--Optimal Coverage Multi-Path Scheduling Scheme with Multiple Mobile Sinks for WSNs, Computers, Materials & Continua, vol.62, no.2, 2020, pp.695-711.
-- An Enhanced PEGASIS Algorithm with Mobile Sink Support for Wireless Sensor Networks, Wireless Communications & Mobile Computing, Volume 2018, Article ID 9472075, 2018.
--Multiple Strategies Differential Privacy on Sparse Tensor Factorization for Network Traffic Analysis in 5G, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol.18, no.3, pp.1939-1948, 2022.
--A novel fault tolerance energy-aware clustering method via social spider optimization (SSO) and fuzzy logic and mobile sink in wireless sensor networks (WSNs), Computer Systems Science and Engineering, vol. 35, no.6, pp. 477–494, 2020.
--Global levy flight of cuckoo search with particle swarm optimization for effective cluster head selection in wireless sensor network, Intelligent Automation & Soft Computing, vol. 26, no.2, pp. 303–311, 2020.
Experimental design: This revised paper is much better now. But it needs major revision due to the following reasons.
1. Please strictly follow this journal template, like alignment, section number etc.

2. Please cite reference papers with increasing references order.

3. In the related works part, it is not suggested to mention each reference paper with 1-2 setences, which is not meaningful.
It is suggested to firstly classfy them into several types and then give explanation about their own work (uniqueness).

4. All tables and figures are missiong in the main pdf file.

5. All the symbols are not alligned well.

6. Please change "Where" to "where" and move it to the front on certain line below certain equations.

7. Acknowledgements part is missing.

8. Reference part is weak, and ref. 93 is missing. There are too many so-so references, which is not necessary.
And more relevant papers about " energy efficiency and optimization for WSN" is suggested like below.
--A PSO based Energy Efficient Coverage Control Algorithm for Wireless Sensor Networks, Computers Materials & Continua，vol.56, no.3, pp.433-446, 2018.
--Optimal Coverage Multi-Path Scheduling Scheme with Multiple Mobile Sinks for WSNs, Computers, Materials & Continua, vol.62, no.2, 2020, pp.695-711.
-- An Enhanced PEGASIS Algorithm with Mobile Sink Support for Wireless Sensor Networks, Wireless Communications & Mobile Computing, Volume 2018, Article ID 9472075, 2018.
--Multiple Strategies Differential Privacy on Sparse Tensor Factorization for Network Traffic Analysis in 5G, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol.18, no.3, pp.1939-1948, 2022.
--A novel fault tolerance energy-aware clustering method via social spider optimization (SSO) and fuzzy logic and mobile sink in wireless sensor networks (WSNs), Computer Systems Science and Engineering, vol. 35, no.6, pp. 477–494, 2020.
--Global levy flight of cuckoo search with particle swarm optimization for effective cluster head selection in wireless sensor network, Intelligent Automation & Soft Computing, vol. 26, no.2, pp. 303–311, 2020.
Validity of the findings: This revised paper is much better now. But it needs major revision due to the following reasons.
1. Please strictly follow this journal template, like alignment, section number etc.

2. Please cite reference papers with increasing references order.

3. In the related works part, it is not suggested to mention each reference paper with 1-2 setences, which is not meaningful.
It is suggested to firstly classfy them into several types and then give explanation about their own work (uniqueness).

4. All tables and figures are missiong in the main pdf file.

5. All the symbols are not alligned well.

6. Please change "Where" to "where" and move it to the front on certain line below certain equations.

7. Acknowledgements part is missing.

8. Reference part is weak, and ref. 93 is missing. There are too many so-so references, which is not necessary.
And more relevant papers about " energy efficiency and optimization for WSN" is suggested like below.
--A PSO based Energy Efficient Coverage Control Algorithm for Wireless Sensor Networks, Computers Materials & Continua，vol.56, no.3, pp.433-446, 2018.
--Optimal Coverage Multi-Path Scheduling Scheme with Multiple Mobile Sinks for WSNs, Computers, Materials & Continua, vol.62, no.2, 2020, pp.695-711.
-- An Enhanced PEGASIS Algorithm with Mobile Sink Support for Wireless Sensor Networks, Wireless Communications & Mobile Computing, Volume 2018, Article ID 9472075, 2018.
--Multiple Strategies Differential Privacy on Sparse Tensor Factorization for Network Traffic Analysis in 5G, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol.18, no.3, pp.1939-1948, 2022.
--A novel fault tolerance energy-aware clustering method via social spider optimization (SSO) and fuzzy logic and mobile sink in wireless sensor networks (WSNs), Computer Systems Science and Engineering, vol. 35, no.6, pp. 477–494, 2020.
--Global levy flight of cuckoo search with particle swarm optimization for effective cluster head selection in wireless sensor network, Intelligent Automation & Soft Computing, vol. 26, no.2, pp. 303–311, 2020.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A NOVEL AUTOENCODER APPROACH TO FEATURE EXTRACTION WITH LINEAR SEPARABILITY FOR HIGH-DIMENSIONAL DATA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This work presents a novel method for feature extraction based on Mahalanobis distance defined by the covariance matrix between features. Some comments:
- Abstract should be more clear
- Separation of graphics from the sequence of the text makes it more difficult to read.
- Highlight all assumptions and limitations of your work.
- Conclusions should provide some lessons learnt.
- Related works section does not mention recent research effors in new approaches to extract meaningful features. Authors are advised to refer to the following related articles to add some discussions: [1] Supervised contrastive learning over prototype-label embeddings for network intrusion detection, Information Fusion, 2022  [3] Effective Feature Extraction via Stacked Sparse Autoencoder to Improve Intrusion Detection System, IEEE Access, 2018 [3] A predictive hybrid reduced order model based on proper orthogonal decomposition combined with deep learning architectures, Expert Systems with Applications, 2022
Experimental design: The design of experiments and the ablation strategy seem correct
Validity of the findings: The selection of different datasets and alternative models looks enough to validate the results
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: A NOVEL AUTOENCODER APPROACH TO FEATURE EXTRACTION WITH LINEAR SEPARABILITY FOR HIGH-DIMENSIONAL DATA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: The experimental design of the authors can be accepted.
Validity of the findings: The findings demonstrated by the authors are very interesting. Especiallly, distance metric-based methods are more suitable for extracting those features with linear separabilities from high-dimensional data than feature selection-based methods
Additional comments: To extract feature from the data in a high-dimensional space, this paper proposed a novel autoencoder approach based on Mahalanobis distance metric of rescaling transformation. Through performing rescaling transformation on Mahalanobis distance metric, then the transformed Mahalanobis distance metric is introduced into the autoencoder, so as to improve the ability of feature extraction to the model.
The issue is very interesting, and these findings are valuable. Moreover, the experiments and the results are acceptable through verifying the source code provided by the authors. Based on the studied problem and these findings, I recommend that this paper is acceptable. In addition, to highlight the studied problem and these findings, I suggest the title “A novel autoencoder approach to feature extraction with linear separability for high-dimensional data”


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: SOME METAHEURISTIC ALGORITHMS FOR SOLVING MULTIPLE CROSS-FUNCTIONAL TEAM SELECTION PROBLEMS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The highlighted Manuscript is a fair contribution for publication but requires minor  improvement init
Experimental design: In the abstract, clearly highlight the computational cost section either it   time of execution or memory allocation

In the proposed optimization model section, the proposed algo must highlight in tabular form
Validity of the findings: State of the art comparison is missing  in it , it must be a part of this manuscript
Additional comments: In the abstract, clearly highlight the computational cost section either it   time of execution or memory allocation

In the proposed optimization model section, the proposed algo must highlight in tabular form

State of the art comparison is missing  in it , it must be a part of this manuscript

Add few more references of  2019,2020 an 2021
Especially in context of  computational cost


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: SOME METAHEURISTIC ALGORITHMS FOR SOLVING MULTIPLE CROSS-FUNCTIONAL TEAM SELECTION PROBLEMS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper concerns Some Metaheuristic Algorithms for Multiple Cross Functional Teams Selection Problem. We designed metaheuristic algorithms to solve the proposed model, including genetic algorithm (GA) and ant colony optimization (ACO). The authors also compare the developed algorithms with the MIQP-CPLEX solver on datasets of 500 programming contestants on 37skills to evaluate their effectiveness.
I found that the paper owns some new interests:
 - method is suitable.
 - the experimental results are quite clear.
 - datasets are good.
 - the results are quite promising.
However, the paper also has some issues that the authors need to clarify:
- The authors should explain why the existing methods in the literature cannot be applied or adjusted to solve the problem?.- The author should describe the GA and ACO in more detail. The author should show the interesting characters in two algorithms. I feel that the authors use the popular and general GA and ACO schemes though it is the first GA and ACO for the problem.- The comparison between the metaheuristic and the exact one is not realistic because they depend on two different types of algorithms. The results of exact algorithms are the optimal solution used to evaluate the efficiency of the metaheuristic.-GA1 is the authors' algorithm for a variant of the problem (Single Team Selection). The authors compare it with the GA of authors. I understand that the authors want to show that the GA algorithm in the paper can solve the variant of the problem well in the literature. The authors should explain the difference in the design of the two algorithms.- The authors should evaluate the efficiency of the proposed algorithm according to gap=(best.sol-OPT)/OPT* 100%. This formulation shows that the difference between the results of the metaheuristic with the optimal values. It is a common formulation used in the metaheuristic field.- The comparison needs to be done in a fair way. Two algorithms run on computers with the same configuration. The authors can count the fitness evaluations? The theoretical complexity is also considered.- Discussion should be added to highlight your contributions and results.
I think the paper has some interesting points. I can be considered to publish if the authors revise well. It should be a major revision.
Experimental design: I have described it above
Validity of the findings: I have described it above
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: SOME METAHEURISTIC ALGORITHMS FOR SOLVING MULTIPLE CROSS-FUNCTIONAL TEAM SELECTION PROBLEMS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript  under the title " Some Metaheuristic Algorithms for Multiple Cross-Functional Teams Selection Problem" seems a mature contribution. However, some minor concerns  still exist in revised version.  Furthermore, grammatical ambiguities exist in the revised version.
Experimental design: 1. In Introduction,  the background section requires more previous contributions that  will be help for readers to understand the domain. Moreover, highlighted the  existing problems in the literature is not. satisfactory

2. Authors must write the proposed algorithm in standard logical form and  design the  flow diagram for actual execution  of the proposed algorithm.

3. The Claim of least computational cost  is not properly incorporated in revised version . Authors must perform experiments for supporting this claim

4. In context of computational cost, authors must define  the cost factor in terms of time of execution and space consumed  by executed  part. Moreover, authors needs to calculate the BIG O notion if authors claim the time factor in computation cost
Validity of the findings: 1.The validation of  results is not satisfactory , even no single pictorial representation  of the results, authors need to improve the presentation of results section.

2. The state of the  art comparison  still confusing , authors need to improve the state of the art comparison portion.
Additional comments: Authors need to improve the manuscript by fixing the above concerns


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: SOME METAHEURISTIC ALGORITHMS FOR SOLVING MULTIPLE CROSS-FUNCTIONAL TEAM SELECTION PROBLEMS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors revised all comments well. I think that the work can be published.
Experimental design: All experiments are conducted well.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: SOME METAHEURISTIC ALGORITHMS FOR SOLVING MULTIPLE CROSS-FUNCTIONAL TEAM SELECTION PROBLEMS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The  revised manuscript under title " Some Metaheuristic Algorithms for Multiple Cross-Functional Teams Selection Problem" seems good in shape. Authors properly response all the highlighted concern . However, the computational complexity requires slightly improvement for  final version of the paper. Please review the below points.

1. Authors must be incorporate the main contributions of the study in the end of introduction
2. In end of introduction section, authors highlight the rest of paper structure in organogram figure for better understanding the flow of the article
Experimental design: 1. The conduction of  table 2 for computational complexity requires to validate throufgh mathematical modeling.
2. Just presents Table 2 is not enough , authors need to highlight and discuss each step of BIG O notation  for GA and ACO algorithm.
Validity of the findings: Authors need to present the state of the art in tabular form and clearly discuss the significance of this research.
Lastly, authors must highlight the future trends of this research that will be helpful for different research communities for proceeding of this research
Additional comments: NA


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: NINE BEST PRACTICES FOR RESEARCH SOFTWARE REGISTRIES AND REPOSITORIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is generally well-written and easy to follow.

In terms of literature references, some relevant software archives are not cited, for example, swMATH at https://swmath.org/ , main reference:

  Greuel, Gert-Martin, and Wolfram Sperber. "swMATH–an information service for mathematical software." International Congress on Mathematical Software. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2014

and some other archives are cited but only with URLs rather than also with the relevant literature references, e.g, Software Heritage is only cited via URL instead of referencing:

  Di Cosmo, Roberto, and Stefano Zacchiroli. "Software heritage: Why and how to preserve software source code." iPRES 2017-14th International Conference on Digital Preservation. 2017

similarly, figshare is only mentioned with URL instead of also referencing, among others:

  Thelwall, Mike, and Kayvan Kousha. "Figshare: a universal repository for academic resource sharing?." Online Information Review (2016).

Both swMATH and Software Heritage should also be mentioned in the introduction, together with Zenodo (that does have a proper citation) and FigShare.

In the introduction, I recommend to anticipate the introduction of the terminology of "resources and collections", because it is really tiresome to mention "registries and repositories", up to that point in the paper. Also, the authors should probably decide between "resources" and "collections" and be consistent about that.

In section 2, Background, "RDA" and "FORCE11" needs references, as they might not be familiar to all readers.
When mentioning "tools have been developed to facilitate depositing research data", other platforms should be mentioned, such as Zenodo, Software Heritage, and other services like the HAL preprint service that now supports depositing source code as well.
At the end of the section, I find it incorrect to say that you "address the needs of domain software registries and repositories", because you are just providing guidelines. Maybe you can tone down this claim a little.

Regarding the presentation of the best practice, it is hard to cross-reference the concrete example of each best practice to the end in the appendix.
I recommend including at least 1-2 examples *inline* in the main paper text just after each best practice, and cross-reference the appendix for *other* examples.
That way the main text of the paper become self-contained (and more interesting!) and the appendix can be consulted only for those readers who want more.
(This is a comment critique/suggestion that applies to all best practices, as they all have examples; which is definitely a good thing!)

As a minor point, the author list is inconsistent between the submission system and the paper; the latter also includes "Task Force on Best Practices for Software Registries, and SciCodes Consortium".
As these are not proper authors, they should not be listed as such, but rather included in the acknowledgments.
Experimental design: Section 3 is a bit disappointing, in the sense that it reads like poorly presented results of a survey.
You should document what were *all* the questions asked, not just a few of them ("questions [...] included") and detail what answers you got in the usual way (descriptive statistics, etc.), otherwise it would be hard to assess the pertinence of the methodology followed to arrive at the guidelines, and this would appear to be just a position paper by the authors.
Validity of the findings: About the specific best practices:

4.1: the wording is weird, the main point is the first one ("What is accepted"), the other two points feel just redundant restatement of the same notion ("what is not accepted" -> complement of the first point; and "notable exceptions" -> which is still a part of the notion of "what is accepted").
Maybe you should recommend that resources operators just focus on the properties/criteria of the artifacts that are acceptable, rather than restating the same notion in different ways.

4.3: the wording of "required and optional metadata" is weird, because it centers on the fact that metadata comes "from software contributors".
Shouldn't this be worded as "required and optional metadata expected for deposited software"?
Metadata are about the software, and the operators should care that they exist, no matter who contribute them.

4.4 "Also, particular care should be taken to maintain the consistency of this policy with the citation policies for the registry or repository." -> I have no idea what this means, it should be better explained/clarified in the text.

4.5 "share your metadata schema" -> "share" should be "publish" or "document", as it's really about making it public, not sharing with others.
"This practice when implemented should specify:" -> drop "when implemented", which feels like a truism that could be said for any of the best practices.

4.6 this best practice is almost entirely worded about metadata, and that seems incorrect to me.
The conditions of use are relevant for both metadata and the data itself (e.g., actual software, for software repositories).
The text of this should be generalized to cover both scenarii on equal footing, maybe adopting the syntactic convention of "(meta)data" when talking about both, as the FAIR Principles do.

4.7 include passages like (emphasis mine) "Additionally, one *can* list explicitly the third-party tools" and "a mechanism by which users can request the removal of such information *may* be described".
In a guideline document, I have a hard time understanding what those two modal verbs mean.
Should the resource operators include those information or not?
I recommend that the authors take a stance on this point.
(Or else describe the precise semantics of the various modal verbs use, e.g., in the style of RFC 2119.)
All this would make the guidelines much more actionable for resource operators.

4.8 When discussing taking offline data and archival, I consider there is an important omission: the requirement of documenting the backup strategy (which commonly goes under the notion of "retention policy") and how the archive reacts to legal takedown notices (e.g., due to DMCA in the US or, in Europe, equivalent legislation as well as GDPR).

4.9 When mentioning the Zenodo example, it would be nice to mention in the paper to where data will be migrated, in addition to the fact that they will be migrated.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: NINE BEST PRACTICES FOR RESEARCH SOFTWARE REGISTRIES AND REPOSITORIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I really appreciate the efforts by the Task Force of FORCE11 SCIWG to come up with the nine best practices for researching software registries and repositories, as well as the clear, well-structured report presented here that provides sufficient context to justify its significance. I have only a few minor comments listed below.

- In lines 151–155, the authors mention that the Task Force gathered information from its members to learn more about each resource and identify overlapping practices. I would encourage the authors to provide a simple visualization of their survey results as the basis for developing best practices.
- Similar to the previous point, the authors mention in lines 483–486 that they observe different adoption rates for best practices upon internal discussion. It would be great if the authors could provide some simple statistics (preferably with visualizations) to let the reader know the status quo.
- Lastly, since the authors mention in lines 487–490 that their effort complements and aligns well with recent guidelines developed for data repositories, it would be interesting to learn the actual similarities and differences between best practices developed by the two communities.

Overall, the nine best practices proposed here are quite comprehensive and tackle many important issues within the broader research community. I look forward to future impact tracking and assessments undertaken by SciCodes.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: NINE BEST PRACTICES FOR RESEARCH SOFTWARE REGISTRIES AND REPOSITORIES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I would like to first commend the authors' efforts in addressing the reviewers' questions in detail and revising their manuscript accordingly. While I'm overall satisfied with the revision, if I had to be picky, I would suggest the authors integrate what is currently in Appendix C into the Methodology section. Both Reviewer #1 and I urged the authors to provide descriptive statistics and/or visualization of their initial survey results to substantiate the empirical grounds of this paper, but the rewritten Methodology section primarily supplies procedural details rather than survey details we have requested.

For instance, lines 154--156 can be re-written as: Participants introduced themselves and their resources by providing some basic information, including repository name, starting year, number of records, target audience (discipline-specific or general), as well as services provided (e.g., support of software citation, software deposits, and doi minting). Figure/Table 1 presents an overview of the responses.

Question | Yes | No | Other
--- | --- | --- | ---
Q1 | raw count (%) | raw count (%) | raw count (%)
Q2 | raw count (%) | raw count (%) | raw count (%)

You can then briefly comment on the results and direct readers to Appendix C for the full list of questions and other summaries of the results if available (e.g., distribution of supported unique identifier types, number of records, and years when the repository started operating).

On a second thought, it seems more appropriate to use a table instead of a figure to present the results, which saves space, but the final decision should be at the authors' discretion. If a figure is still preferred, I would encourage the authors to experiment with other types of visualization such as a stacked bar chart or a divergent stacked bar chart. The rationale is that we know the responses for each question sum to 30 anyway, and there are only three possible answers for each (Yes/No/Other), so there is no real benefit of having separate bars to represent possible answers for each question.

Other minor points

- The quotation marks in lines 1018--1019 do not look right, possibly an issue related to LaTex.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: NINE BEST PRACTICES FOR RESEARCH SOFTWARE REGISTRIES AND REPOSITORIES
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: As a general comment for the authors and editors, there seems to be a process failure here. I have reviewed v0 of this paper and I'm not reviewing v2. There seem to have been a v1 in between, which I have not reviewed. As a consequence of that I have seen neither the tracked changes between v0 and v1, nor the rebuttal for v1 (which presumably included author answers to my initial remarks). Hence in this review I'm solely pointing out which parts of my initial review for v0 are still not addressed. This is not due to a fault of the authors, but of the review process. Still, as a reviewer, I have to insist on the points for which I have received neither an answer nor a change.

-----------------

Regarding basic reporting, the only remaining unaddressed point is this:

> Regarding the presentation of the best practice, it is hard to cross-reference the concrete example of each best practice to the end in the appendix.  I recommend including at least 1-2 examples *inline* in the main paper text just after each best practice, and cross-reference the appendix for *other* examples.  That way the main text of the paper become self-contained (and more interesting!) and the appendix can be consulted only for those readers who want more.  (This is a comment critique/suggestion that applies to all best practices, as they all have examples; which is definitely a good thing!)
Experimental design: No remaining unaddressed points from my initial review remains about experimental design. It's all good!
Validity of the findings: The following points of my initial review for v0 remains unaddressed (and are in fact the main reason why I am recommending a major revision):

> 4.1: the wording is weird, the main point is the first one ("What is accepted"), the other two points feel just redundant restatement of the same notion ("what is not accepted" -> complement of the first point; and "notable exceptions" -> which is still a part of the notion of "what is accepted"). Maybe you should recommend that resources operators just focus on the properties/criteria of the artifacts that are acceptable, rather than restating the same notion in different ways.

> 4.4 "Also, particular care should be taken to maintain the consistency of this policy with the citation policies for the registry or repository." -> I have no idea what this means, it should be better explained/clarified in the text.

> 4.5 "share your metadata schema" -> "share" should be "publish" or "document", as it's really about making it public, not sharing with others.

> 4.6 this best practice is almost entirely worded about metadata, and that seems incorrect to me.  The conditions of use are relevant for both metadata and the data itself (e.g., actual software, for software repositories).  The text of this should be generalized to cover both scenarii on equal footing, maybe adopting the syntactic convention of "(meta)data" when talking about both, as the FAIR Principles do.

> 4.8 When discussing taking offline data and archival, I consider there is an important omission: the requirement of documenting the backup strategy (which commonly goes under the notion of "retention policy") and how the archive reacts to legal takedown notices (e.g., due to DMCA in the US or, in Europe, equivalent legislation as well as GDPR).
Additional comments: Other than the above points, the authors did a good job at improving the paper. Thanks a lot for addressing all the (other) points I had raised in my initial review. I'm looking forward to this article finalization.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: NINE BEST PRACTICES FOR RESEARCH SOFTWARE REGISTRIES AND REPOSITORIES
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I noticed that the time of the inaugural Task Force meeting (February 2019) is different from the date shown in the Table 1 caption (November 2019). I was wondering if this was a random mistake or if the responses were actually collected later. Other than that, all the previous comments have been adequately addressed, and the manuscript can be accepted in its current form.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DATA AUGMENTATION AND DEEP NEURAL NETWORKS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF PAKISTANI RACIAL SPEAKERS RECOGNITION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In this study, the authors present a data augmentation method that shifts the pitch, uses multiple window sizes, stretches the time, and adds white noise to the original audio.

The presented subject is undoubtedly attractive. Just the presented study might be somewhat weak in innovation. Frankly, the proposed approach might not be technically sound.
Experimental design: Transfer from previous research to deep neural networks, more like an MLP (multilayer perceptron), which stacks too many “Dropout” and “ReLU” layers, which might be somewhat unintelligible.

Data augmentation for fitting deep learning has been well-known efficacy most of the time.
Validity of the findings: Problem formation of this study might not be credible. Therefore, the authors are required to address the potential of the presented study based on speech emotion recognition.

Particularly, making necessary efforts to let the presented novelties much more recognizable by other scholars.
Additional comments: None


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DATA AUGMENTATION AND DEEP NEURAL NETWORKS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF PAKISTANI RACIAL SPEAKERS RECOGNITION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper addresses an interesting problem of Speech Emotion Recognition. Leveraging Deep Neural Networks, it proposes a technique to classify multiple Urdu language accent speakers. While the evaluation and analysis of the proposal show promising results, the language and structure (elaborated in **Additional Comment**) of the paper makes it extremely hard to read thus hindering fluency and comprehension.

I really appreciate the authors' efforts to share the code with the research community. I believe this will help further research and reproducibility of the proposed technique. It would be more beneficial if the author share the dataset (**Augmented Dataset**) for end-to-end reproducibility of the results.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: Although the authors reported the results of the analysis, a comparison with related work would really help the validation of the findings. Also, it would be interesting to validate the results in different multilingual settings with lower vs. high pitches of multiple speakers etc.
Additional comments: Language, Structure and Sign-posting:

The lack of structure, use of confusing language, and absence of sign-posting made this paper a bit harder to read. For instance, in the abstract, you first need to clearly define the problem and mention why it is important to solve it. You also need to sign-post your take on related work and the need for an improved, efficient mechanism to solve the problem. You then need to structure and briefly present your technique and salient features (i.e., some results). At the end you need to highlight the key takeaway(s) from your research.

The aforementioned structure could be followed throughout the (sub)sections of the paper.

From the abstract, it is not clear how and why SER is a complex issue? For clearer readability, perhaps, you may define SER before terming it as a complex issue. Once defined, you can then pin-point the complexity and attribute it to the main component(s) in SER.

What do you mean by limited database? Do you mean a limited number of speech emotion dataset?

You need to clarify why **seven**-layer framework was employed? Why not less or greater than **seven** a layer framework was used?

Introduction:
Please structure your introduction as per suggestion mentioned above.

Please consider restructuring the last paragraph of Introduction. For instance, "This report (--> paper) is divided .... about the conclusion of the research outcomes." could be a separate paragraph.

What do you mean by "numerous investigations"? Is numerous equals 10, 100, 1,000, etc?

Related Work:
- "Many countries ..." need to be correctly sign-posted. Countries do no research. Rather researchers investigate problems.

Having too many references without proper discussion or structure of the reference is concerning. Please avoid tangential references and cite the key, related work.

Data Augmentation
I think this section should be renamed as Data Manipulation as some techniques such as "Pitch Shifting" can not be termed as data augmentation technique. "Pitch Shifting" is a perturbation technique rather than data augmentation.
Please duplicate references e.g.,:

Please consider restructuring this section as the first paragraph is way too long and hard to read.

Methodology:

What does **0:42* represented in Table 2 (in Column, "Duration per sample")? Please keep consistency when reporting numbers or data in tables.

Salamon, J. and Bello, J. P. (2016). Deep convolutional neural networks and data augmentation for
environmental sound classification. CoRR, abs/1608.04363.

Salamon, J. and Bello, J. P. (2017a). Deep convolutional neural networks and data augmentation for environmental sound classification. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 24(3):279–283.

Salamon, J. and Bello, J. P. (2017b). Deep convolutional neural networks and data augmentation for
environmental sound classification. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 24(3):279283.

- And the following

Damskgg, E.-P. and Vlimki, V. (2017a). Audio time stretching using fuzzy classification of spectral bins. Applied Sciences, 7(12):1293.

Damskgg, E.-P. and Vlimki, V. (2017b). Audio time stretching using fuzzy classification of spectral bins. Applied Sciences, 7(12).

Misc:

It would be great if you could minimize the use of **passive voice**. In most of well-written, readable CS paper use **active voice** for improved communication.

Please align Table 7 with text-width size. You may reduce the width of column # 1 and column # 3.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CAUSAL GRAPH EXTRACTION FROM NEWS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TIME-SERIES CAUSALITY LEARNING TECHNIQUES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: A good article which presents a novel framework for extracting causal graphs from digital text media that are selected from a domain under analysis by applying specially developed information retrieval and natural language processing methods. The framework is applied to the New York Times dataset, which covers news for a period of 246 months. The proposed analysis offers valuable insights into the problems of identifying topic-relevant variables from large volumes of news and learning causal graphs from time series.

A.	Normally, the Abstract and beginning of an introduction section contain the problems in the existing approaches followed by the solution but in this article, the problem statement is somehow not discussed.

B.	In the introduction, the proposed work starts from line 48 then in between (lines 53-55) the works of the other authors came.
-	It will be nice to have if existing work is discussed in one place followed by proposed work. In this way, the reader will have a good understanding of the work.

C.	The employed dataset is consisting of 246 month period.
-	Why not this period is mentioned in years. So that each reader doesn’t have to calculate it.

D.	How research questions have been formulated/reached? Normally, this is done after an extensive literature review but in this article, it seems some sort of reverse engineering is being done e.g., research questions are mapped to literature.

E.	In the related work section, existing research is being discussed but shortcomings of each work are not highlighted. These shortcomings ultimately lead to research questions.

F.	Figure 2 can be improved. At the moment, it is a bit congested. E.g., step 2 and step 5 converge at a point that is not very clear to the reader.

G.	Line # 200, a topic is said to be relevant if it contains mention
-	This is a big assumption because it is not necessary to have mentioned it in all cases.

H.	Line # 221, what is BERT embeddings?

I.	Line # 248, the selected topic has the highest number of mentions in the corpus.
-	Is this a biased input to the proposed framework? What if the selected topic has the lowest number of mentions? How proposed framework will behave in this scenario?

J.	Why scale-free and random forward DAGs are used?

K.	The conclusion section contains the summary of the paper in the first two paragraphs which should not be there because this is repeating stuff again and again.

L.	In future work, integration of this work with some visual tools is mentioned.
-	For example?
Experimental design: Experimental design is aligned with the proposed methodology with enough details to reproduce the results.

For example, the code written in python language with sufficient comments is made public for use:
https://cs.uns.edu.ar/~mmaisonnave/resources/causality/code/
Maisonnave et al 2020 - Event Detection.ipynb - Colaboratory (google.com)
Use case evaluation.ipynb - Colaboratory (google.com)
Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided with a well-stated discussion.
Economic Relevant News from The Guardian - Mendeley Data
Maisonnave et al 2020 - FDD paper.ipynb - Colaboratory (google.com)
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CAUSAL GRAPH EXTRACTION FROM NEWS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TIME-SERIES CAUSALITY LEARNING TECHNIQUES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper presents a framework for extracting causal graphs from digital text media. It consist of 8 steps that goes from analyzing the text of news to filter topical-relevant sentences, discover events and construct time series to learn a causal structure among variables. The framework is a valuable contribution for the area as it describe all the process starting from raw text to achieve an actual graph structure of events, providing a concrete technique for each of the steps so that it can be effectively operationalized.

The paper is in general well-written and explained. There are some issues that can be improved regarding organization. First, the place of the section “Causal structure learning” is a little misleading, since such learning is just a part of the framework and the last step (not yet introduced at that point), also only mentions existing state-of-the-art algorithms, I think it can be place in the description of step 8 or later. Second, in each step of the framework, although a technique is chosen and described, it would be interesting to mention other alternatives that can take their place in the framework and justify the selection. Other details:

- in step 1 it is mention the use of n-grams, but the examples only have single terms. (e.g. United, States). Why not 2-grams for instance? or NER entities?
- the role of Beta within the framework in step 2 should be clarified, which is the rationale of its value in the framework? In this setting, it is preferred descriptive or discriminative terms?
- in step 3, the event trigger consist of a single word? Which is the effect of using a unique word in this context of a huge volume of texts?
- step 5, the elbow method provide a suggestion for the number of clusters, it this done automatically? All clusters are considered or some small ones can be discarded?
- in the case study, it said “sixteen variables”, should be 6?
Experimental design: The experimentation with a framework such as the one proposed by the authors is difficult because of the lack of ground truth. Therefore, the evaluation with the Iran case study, which was used previously for illustrating the example is valuable. I think the data generated for the case study should be also considered a contribution of the work.
The evaluation with synthetic data of the causal learning technique is again a little out of the focus of the paper, as it only proves which learning algorithms works well with the generated synthetic data, but it is not really the type of data used in the framework. Therefore, it looks more a general evaluation of algorithms unrelated to the framework itself.
Validity of the findings: The findings are interesting and demonstrate that the framework can be operationalized and used to analyze real data. Some additional comments to help to highlight the paper contribution:

- the practical implications of the framework can be discussed, probably in the conclusions. As it can be a valuable tool for analysis, potential scenarios and uses can be identified.
- another aspect to discuss is the level of user intervention that is needed for using the framework, the iterations required and setting of parameters, also some guidelines for their application can be provided
- as the paper introduced some research questions at the beginning it would be important to go back to them in the discussion/conclusions to summarize the findings
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CAUSAL GRAPH EXTRACTION FROM NEWS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TIME-SERIES CAUSALITY LEARNING TECHNIQUES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Looking good now.
Experimental design: Ok.
Validity of the findings: Fine.
Additional comments: 12 questions were raised related to basic  reporting. In the revision, most of them are addressed. I think, document is good to go now.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CAUSAL GRAPH EXTRACTION FROM NEWS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TIME-SERIES CAUSALITY LEARNING TECHNIQUES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper presents a framework for extracting causal graphs from digital text media, considering the analysis of big volumes of text. The contribution is interesting and the resulting framework provides a good starting point for experimentation with causal learning from social media.

The revised version of the paper has been improved regarding clarity of the contribution, analysis of research questions and implications of the work. I still think that the related works section should highlight further the advantages of the approach and potential applications which are not covered by previous works in the literature.

The description of the main steps of the frame work have also been improved, making more clear the scope of the individual techniques and their alternatives.
Experimental design: The experimental evaluation performed with real world data is valuable and provide evidence that the framework can perform well when applied to real data. The authors also clarify the role of the evaluation of synthetic data as a first step to discard some options.
Validity of the findings: The findings have been validated with the experimental evaluation on real-world data. The revised version also discuss the conclusions regarding the research questions as asked and the practical implications of the work presented.
Additional comments: The authors have addressed all my concerns in this revised version, I think the paper has been considerably improved.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: MOBILE PHONE ENABLED MENTAL HEALTH MONITORING TO ENHANCE DIAGNOSIS FOR SEVERITY ASSESSMENT OF BEHAVIOURS: A REVIEW
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article meets the appropriate standards. Extensive references, the writing is clear and tables and figures are adequate.
Experimental design: The study design is correct. But it is necessary to explain in more detail the selection criteria of the chosen literature. It should also go deeper into the characteristics of the non-selected literature.
They must justify the selective criteria regarding the databases used and those not used. For example, why haven't you used The Web of Science or Scopus?
And offer information on the name of the publications with articles on the subject, with data on the number of publications per year, etc.
Validity of the findings: It is necessary to compare results with other similar existing studies. Emphasizing the coincidences and divergences on the results obtained. A critical reflection on the limitations of smartphones and passive devices to analyze personal health data is also necessary. Attention to bioethical limits, privacy, and confidentiality. Do you start from the fact that the smartphone user freely allows being monitored?
The use of smartphones for diagnostic evaluation has social, economic, and cultural limitations. Authors should keep this fact in mind. It is not possible to generalize passive monitoring to produce data in athletes when we refer to data monitoring in cases of people with medical pathologies or social inclusion problems. Sick or socially vulnerable people have different behaviors.
I suggest a greater emphasis on the discussion of the results and the limitations of the study carried out.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: MOBILE PHONE ENABLED MENTAL HEALTH MONITORING TO ENHANCE DIAGNOSIS FOR SEVERITY ASSESSMENT OF BEHAVIOURS: A REVIEW
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	Literature in the field of public health has moved away from using the term “mental disorder” and towards “mental health issues” to avoid stigmatizing those affected. I would recommend adapting this language (e.g., in the abstract).
2.	Kindly review the full manuscript for grammatical errors and sentence structure. In some areas the language is inconsistent (i.e., use of terms depression vs. psychological health issues) and can be simplified (i.e., lines 96-97).
3.	The results organization is unclear and difficult to follow. The manuscript would benefit from clearly outlining the scoping review goal and specific sub-questions to enable this format to be followed in the results.
4.	Overall, the manuscript text can be tightened to align more closely with the subheadings and avoid repetition throughout. For example, the purpose of digital tools for mental health assessment does not need to be repeated in the ‘Search Strategy’ subsection as this has been established in the Introduction.
5.	Typically scoping reviews include a review of the grey literature. Given the focus on peer-reviewed literature, this could be categorized as a systematic review.
Experimental design: 1.	References are required in the first paragraph (lines 89-91).
2.	The search strategy section can be more clearly organized to remind the reader of the key research question for the scoping review, search parameters (date range, databases), and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Currently information like the timeline (Jan 2015-Dec 2020) is repeated twice.
3.	The additional rationale provided in the first few sentences is already in the introduction, and is not required again in this section.
4.	Please note how many reviewers participated in the article screening process, and how/if any disagreements in the shortlist were resolved (i.e. consensus exercise).
Validity of the findings: 1.	Line 130 is unclear, what is “explicit human contact with the monitoring system?”
2.	Please describe Figure 2 in greater detail. How was the framework compiled? Why is it organized as such? What do the acronyms used under Self-Report stand for?
3.	The results can be organized for a clearer presentation. Additional text (i.e., lines 142-145, 288-290) distract from the results and should only be noted in the discussion section.
4.	Please bold the first row in all Tables to distinguish the column headers.
Additional comments: Abstract:
1.	The second sentence is unclear, how does the severity of mental health issues lead to observations of people through smartphones? The point about potential for smartphone-based data collection in the abstract can be communicated more concisely to improve clarity.

Introduction
1.	The introduction requires references for many of the statements made in the first paragraph. Please review lines 36-53 and include references throughout.
2.	Line 84 notes “estimating depression” however the introduction suggests that a range of psychiatric conditions are included in this review. Please refine the language based on the scoping review focus.
3.	Two goals are mentioned in the Introduction (lines 68 and again on lines 80-81). This section would benefit from organizing to indicate perhaps the overarching goal (i.e., to develop a framework) informed by a scoping review. The text currently framed as the scoping review goal could be reformatting as the primary research question of the review. The list provided on lines 72-78 can be reformatted as objectives.

Discussion
1.	Tables and figures are typically not placed in the Discussion section. Please move Tables 9 and 10 to the Results section and revise the discussion accordingly.
Conclusions
1.	The conclusion section makes no mention of mental health issues which is meant to be the focus of this systematic review.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: MOBILE PHONE ENABLED MENTAL HEALTH MONITORING TO ENHANCE DIAGNOSIS FOR SEVERITY ASSESSMENT OF BEHAVIOURS: A REVIEW
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: What doe it mean by the statement at lines 93-94 and a number of research articles selected from the various databases to “fine” the research work. Please carefully read the article and remove these major mistakes.
Table 1 seems to be ambiguous, can you elaborate on how this table has been formed?
Your search query resulted in 943 manuscripts, but I am unable to find any automatic way to filter out these articles, have you read them manually and then selected the shortlisted articles or what? Please explain
Please write the complete name of figures in texti e.g. Fig might not be appropriate. At some places, it is complete e.g at line 138. Please make sure it should be consistent.
Please explain the steps in figure 1, the data flow diagram. All the steps were performed manually?
The literature review article should be a comprehensive study of relevant studies and their findings and recommendations for the readers. Unfortunately, these things seem to be lacking in the current article
There are lots of typos and grammatical mistakes; some of them are as follows

This physiological issues needs to be consistently observed on the people, could be.
These physiological issues need to be consistently observed in the people ….

Thus, the aim of this comprehensive work concentrates on the literature work done so far in the prediction of mental heath issues, what is “heath” in this one ?
Experimental design: What doe it mean by the statement at lines 93-94 and a number of research articles selected from the various databases to “fine” the research work. Please carefully read the article and remove these major mistakes.
Table 1 seems to be ambiguous, can you elaborate on how this table has been formed?
Your search query resulted in 943 manuscripts, but I am unable to find any automatic way to filter out these articles, have you read them manually and then selected the shortlisted articles or what? Please explain
Please write the complete name of figures in texti e.g. Fig might not be appropriate. At some places, it is complete e.g at line 138. Please make sure it should be consistent.
Please explain the steps in figure 1, the data flow diagram. All the steps were performed manually?
The literature review article should be a comprehensive study of relevant studies and their findings and recommendations for the readers. Unfortunately, these things seem to be lacking in the current article
There are lots of typos and grammatical mistakes; some of them are as follows

This physiological issues needs to be consistently observed on the people, could be.
These physiological issues need to be consistently observed in the people ….

Thus, the aim of this comprehensive work concentrates on the literature work done so far in the prediction of mental heath issues, what is “heath” in this one ?
Validity of the findings: What doe it mean by the statement at lines 93-94 and a number of research articles selected from the various databases to “fine” the research work. Please carefully read the article and remove these major mistakes.
Table 1 seems to be ambiguous, can you elaborate on how this table has been formed?
Your search query resulted in 943 manuscripts, but I am unable to find any automatic way to filter out these articles, have you read them manually and then selected the shortlisted articles or what? Please explain
Please write the complete name of figures in text e.g. Fig might not be appropriate. At some places, it is complete e.g at line 138. Please make sure it should be consistent.
Please explain the steps in figure 1, the data flow diagram. All the steps were performed manually?
The literature review article should be a comprehensive study of relevant studies and their findings and recommendations for the readers. Unfortunately, these things seem to be lacking in the current article
There are lots of typos and grammatical mistakes; some of them are as follows

This physiological issues needs to be consistently observed on the people, could be.
These physiological issues need to be consistently observed in the people ….

Thus, the aim of this comprehensive work concentrates on the literature work done so far in the prediction of mental heath issues, what is “heath” in this one ?
Additional comments: this paper needs serious level improvements for re-consideration


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: MOBILE PHONE ENABLED MENTAL HEALTH MONITORING TO ENHANCE DIAGNOSIS FOR SEVERITY ASSESSMENT OF BEHAVIOURS: A REVIEW
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: the author have made no change in Table1 , as track version and updated version is not showing at least. my question was to make it clear, they wrote in rebuttal but makes no changes in the actual table

???Thanks for your comments. We used search queries to retrieve 6 databases. Figure 1 depicts the steps we use followed to include the articles which meet the selection criteria. Please see Figure 1 for more details., another ambiguous answer, the actual comment was
Your search query resulted in 943 manuscripts, but I am unable to find any automatic way to filter out these articles, have you read them manually and then selected the shortlisted articles or what? Please explain

manual scanning of 963 articles seems to be a very hectic and tedious task, and almost impossible
it is difficult to judge why the authors have added RELEVANT WORKS section ? figure 4 is not properly cited
please re-structure the overall document in a proper article hierarchy and then resubmit
Experimental design: the author have made no change in Table1 , as track version and updated version is not showing at least. my question was to make it clear, they wrote in rebuttal but makes no changes in the actual table

???Thanks for your comments. We used search queries to retrieve 6 databases. Figure 1 depicts the steps we use followed to include the articles which meet the selection criteria. Please see Figure 1 for more details., another ambiguous answer, the actual comment was
Your search query resulted in 943 manuscripts, but I am unable to find any automatic way to filter out these articles, have you read them manually and then selected the shortlisted articles or what? Please explain

manual scanning of 963 articles seems to be a very hectic and tedious task, and almost impossible
it is difficult to judge why the authors have added RELEVANT WORKS section ? figure 4 is not properly cited
please re-structure the overall document in a proper article hierarchy and then resubmit
Validity of the findings: the author have made no change in Table1 , as track version and updated version is not showing at least. my question was to make it clear, they wrote in rebuttal but makes no changes in the actual table

???Thanks for your comments. We used search queries to retrieve 6 databases. Figure 1 depicts the steps we use followed to include the articles which meet the selection criteria. Please see Figure 1 for more details., another ambiguous answer, the actual comment was
Your search query resulted in 943 manuscripts, but I am unable to find any automatic way to filter out these articles, have you read them manually and then selected the shortlisted articles or what? Please explain

manual scanning of 963 articles seems to be a very hectic and tedious task, and almost impossible
it is difficult to judge why the authors have added RELEVANT WORKS section ? figure 4 is not properly cited
please re-structure the overall document in a proper article hierarchy and then resubmit
Additional comments: the author have made no change in Table1 , as track version and updated version is not showing at least. my question was to make it clear, they wrote in rebuttal but makes no changes in the actual table

???Thanks for your comments. We used search queries to retrieve 6 databases. Figure 1 depicts the steps we use followed to include the articles which meet the selection criteria. Please see Figure 1 for more details., another ambiguous answer, the actual comment was
Your search query resulted in 943 manuscripts, but I am unable to find any automatic way to filter out these articles, have you read them manually and then selected the shortlisted articles or what? Please explain

manual scanning of 963 articles seems to be a very hectic and tedious task, and almost impossible
it is difficult to judge why the authors have added RELEVANT WORKS section ? figure 4 is not properly cited
please re-structure the overall document in a proper article hierarchy and then resubmit


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: IS GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE A CONFLUENCE OF CULTURE? EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM SOCIAL MEDIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The topic of research is really interesting. But I found a few lacking in the paper.
Experimental design: The author didn't mention the flow chart of the proposed work. Proposed work must explain step by step according to the flow chart.
Secondly, What is the novelty of this work
Third, whether this entire work is study or research work. Somewhere author mentions it's as a study and somewhere he mentions it's a study. Kindly go with a strong proofread of your paper.
Validity of the findings: Not satisfactory
Additional comments: Once again author must revise this manuscript and submit it again.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: IS GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE A CONFLUENCE OF CULTURE? EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM SOCIAL MEDIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Paper is clear and understandable. Format and structure of the manuscript is very clear.
Experimental design: Experimental methodology is discussed very clearly. No need for any updation.
Validity of the findings: Novelty exist in the paper, which impact to the credibility of the author.
Additional comments: Again appreciating the work done by the author. Nice work and structured manuscript.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: IS GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE A CONFLUENCE OF CULTURE? EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM SOCIAL MEDIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	Authors are required to improve the English language and some sentence structures need to be updated.
2 In some sections authors have written too many paragraphs for expressing their views. Need to update the style with some professional writing style.
3	Provide expanded from of abbreviations wherever used for the first time.
4.	Make your Introduction section more technical than in the current form it just focuses on the basics of fog computing.
Experimental design: 1- The calculation of the fitness value is not clarified in the proposed method.
2- More details are needed to clarify the proposed method flow chart.
3-Please check the proofreading of the paper
Validity of the findings: 4-The quality of the article should be improved by giving more details about the contribution
5- The problem formulation part is not well-organized and the added value must be well described
Additional comments: 6- The references are applicable but are not sufficient


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: IS GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE A CONFLUENCE OF CULTURE? EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM SOCIAL MEDIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.Given header keywords in Table 1, together with any heading, and all table perimeter names.
2. Authors have improved the language.
3. References have been updated to include some more recently published work.
Figures are OK.
Experimental design: The authors have carried out the various experiments as per identified problem statement.
Validity of the findings: 5. They have updated the methodology section accordingly.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: HIGH-DIMENSIONAL NORMALIZED DATA PROFILES FOR TESTING DERIVATIVE-FREE OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHMS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: - Mathematical notation in page 2 is not standard in the DFO literature. Please use widely-used mathematical notation.

- Capitalize the first letter in "equation"

- "The HNM algorithm proved to deliver better performance than the
traditional NM algorithm, represented by a famous Matlab function, known as ”fminsearch” Musafer and Mahmood (2018)". fminsearch has not been proposed by Musafer and Mahmood (2018), it is the classic NM algorithm.

- "From the table, ...". Please provide references to all figures/tables.

- The English language can be improved. Some examples where the language could be improved include lines 222 and 292 – the current phrasing makes
comprehension difficult.

- A readme file is needed in the Supplemental_File.zip in order to be able to find out where to find the codes and problem files.
Experimental design: - "The standard parameter values for usual delta d_u and for zero term delta d_z are chosen 0.05 and 0.00025 respectively". Please justify.

- The test functions have not been presented in the text. More importantly, all these problems have only a few variables. The authors need to consider much larger problems.

- What's the purpose of the computational study? Why not compare against efficient DFO algorithms (e.g., NOMAD)?
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The paper is interesting. However, I am confused about its scope. Looking at the title of the paper (High-dimensional normalized data profiles for testing derivative-free optimization algorithms), I would expect that the authors propose a new tool (similar to data profiles) for comparing DFO algorithms. However, this is not the case since the authors are proposing five sequences of trigonometric simplex designs for high dimensional unconstrained optimization problems. Therefore, the authors need to focus on this and only present normalized data profiles as a mean to compare their algorithm. Thus, I believe that the authors need to restructure their paper in order to make this clear. Finally, the computational results are weak. The authors need to consider larger problems and other DFO algorithms to compare with.

Other issues

- Mathematical notation in page 2 is not standard in the DFO literature. Please use widely-used mathematical notation.

- Capitalize the first letter in "equation"

- "The standard parameter values for usual delta d_u and for zero term delta d_z are chosen 0.05 and 0.00025 respectively". Please justify.

- "The HNM algorithm proved to deliver better performance than the
traditional NM algorithm, represented by a famous Matlab function, known as ”fminsearch” Musafer and Mahmood (2018)". fminsearch has not been proposed by Musafer and Mahmood (2018), it is the classic NM algorithm.

- The test functions have not been presented in the text. More importantly, all these problems have only a few variables. The authors need to consider much larger problems.

- What's the purpose of the computational study? Why not compare against efficient DFO algorithms (e.g., NOMAD)?

- "From the table, ...". Please provide references to all figures/tables.

- The English language can be improved. Some examples where the language could be improved include lines 222 and 292 – the current phrasing makes
comprehension difficult.

- A readme file is needed in the Supplemental_File.zip in order to be able to find out where to find the codes and problem files.