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: IMPROVING SCHEDULING PERFORMANCE IN CONGESTED NETWORKS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and unambiguous professional English
Experimental design: Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal
Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided
Additional comments: The authors have  introduced a new packet scheduling techniques based on the  Erlang capacity planning  methods  for managing the congested networks. The results show improvement in the performance  in several experiments. Following are  few observations that needs to be addressed by authors.
(a)  - Authors needs to clarify  what  advantages  Erlang based TI  have in comparison to  the common approach  based on arrival rate ,packet length and transmission rate. There are some existing packet scheduling techniques that uses the traffic intensity information to make the scheduling decisions, how this approach is different?
(b)  - Two types of the Erlang B and C are mentioned. What is the effect if Erlang B or C is used?  And how authors calculated  during simulation?[line 243,]
(c)  -  the TI values  given in Table 3, are these randomly chosen  or what criteria  authors have used  to calculate them?
(d)  -  Authors stated that , FOB process is used, how the scheduling will work if there is no forecast information available? And how the  sessions with asymmetric  data rates are  scheduled,  authors need to provide clarification.
(e)  -  The result section shows presented the  comparison with drr, sfq, rr and red, why these specific  techniques were considered and why not others.
(f)  - Authors have given the simulation topology in figure 7, Line 583. Authors need  to clarify what type of traffic was used? what was the packet size and their propagation delays values?  What is impact of  changing these values?
(g)  - Authors have shown 100% delivery ratios for the proposed scheme, what benchmarks have been considered to calculate the percentage of delivery ratios? Are these comparative or some fixed limits  were used in the calculations? .
(h)  -  The figure 20, in the comparison section, How the overhead was calculated, was it based on actual packet captures or some other assumptions are made?
(i)  - Authors need to make sure that abbreviations are consistent throughout the paper, and abbreviations must be defined where they occur first time.
(j) – It would be better if author consider to discuss following papers in section 2
Gao, Honghao, et al. "Collaborative learning-based industrial IoT API recommendation for software-defined devices: The implicit knowledge discovery perspective." IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence (2020).
Huang, Yuzhe, et al. "SSUR: An Approach to Optimizing Virtual Machine Allocation Strategy Based on User Requirements for Cloud Data Center." IEEE Transactions on Green Communications and Networking 5.2 (2021): 670-681.
Hussain, Walayat, and Osama Sohaib. "Analysing cloud QoS prediction approaches and its control parameters: Considering overall accuracy and freshness of a dataset." IEEE Access 7 (2019): 82649-82671.
Finally, the paper is well written there are some issues that need to address before the publication of the article.


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: IMPROVING SCHEDULING PERFORMANCE IN CONGESTED NETWORKS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have made all the requirements in the revised version. They have done all the experiments in their paper.
So, the paper looks good.
Experimental design: The authors have made all the requirements in the revised version.

All the new designs have been done in the revision.
Validity of the findings: The authors have made all the requirements in the revised version.

They have done new findings in their experiments and then added them to the revised paper.
Additional comments: The paper could be accepted for possible 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: IMPROVING SCHEDULING PERFORMANCE IN CONGESTED NETWORKS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Experimental design: Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
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: IMPROVING SCHEDULING PERFORMANCE IN CONGESTED NETWORKS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Author have completed all requirements to make paper looks good
Experimental design: Improved design has been demonstrated in paper
Validity of the findings: This part is also improved with some new findings
Additional comments: revised version is acceptable 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: DESIGN OF A ROBUST ACTIVE FUZZY PARALLEL DISTRIBUTED COMPENSATION ANTI-VIBRATION CONTROLLER FOR A HAND-GLOVE SYSTEM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Please, see the attached file
Experimental design: please, see the attached file
Validity of the findings: please, see the attached file
Additional comments: please, see the attached file


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: DESIGN OF A ROBUST ACTIVE FUZZY PARALLEL DISTRIBUTED COMPENSATION ANTI-VIBRATION CONTROLLER FOR A HAND-GLOVE SYSTEM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The English writing is clear and professional, and the structure of the paper is easy to follow. Additionally, the literature references are fair enough.
The raw data is shared, however, there are some problems. There is not any description of how to run the simulations files, I figured it out. Simulation file of AFC controller, PID controller and Passive glove hand system run without any problem. However, the Simulink file of Fuzzy PDC controller fails because variables K_F1 and K_F2 were not declared correctly. I fixed it by changing the variables K_F1 and K_F2 to K_f1 and K_f2 in the file fuzzy_PDC_Controlled_Gloved_Hand_System_Data.m, respectively. I think is important to add a description to run the files and upload the fuzzy_PDC_Controlled_Gloved_Hand_System_Data.m file fixed.
Experimental design: I consider the paper is into the scope of the journal. Moreover, the proposed control scheme is described in detail, and stability proof is also presented.
Validity of the findings: The performance of the proposed fuzzy PDC controller is compared against the PID and AFC controllers. The proposed control scheme proved to be superior in suppressing the vibration experienced by the user. Moreover, the proposed controller is robust to changes of hand masses.
Additional comments: There are some minor problems that need attention. Comment and suggestions are:
a) Equation (2c) is part of Equation (2b). Both Equations should be one.
b) In line 133 of subsection 1.2, should the variables x, u and w be in bold letter?
c) In simulation results, How were the PID gains adjusted? Were they adjusted by experimentation? Some remarks should be added to the paper.
e) In the description of the active vibration control diagram of section 2, the authors comments that the incoming vibration is sensed by using a sensing mechanism, and then a control signal is generated from the measurements of the displacement, velocity or acceleration of the mass M that are fed back.  It would be worthy to mention what type of sensors can be used to perform the measurements.
f) The raw data is shared, however, there are some problems. There is not any description of how to run the simulations files, I figured it out. Simulation file of AFC controller, PID controller and Passive glove hand system run without any problem. However, the Simulink file of Fuzzy PDC controller fails because variables K_F1 and K_F2 were not declared correctly. I fixed it by changing the variables K_F1 and K_F2 to K_f1 and K_f2 in the file fuzzy_PDC_Controlled_Gloved_Hand_System_Data.m, respectively. I think is important to add a description to run the files and upload the fuzzy_PDC_Controlled_Gloved_Hand_System_Data.m file fixed.


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: DESIGN OF A ROBUST ACTIVE FUZZY PARALLEL DISTRIBUTED COMPENSATION ANTI-VIBRATION CONTROLLER FOR A HAND-GLOVE SYSTEM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 1- Some explanation can be provided in detail to highlight the contribution.
2- No comparisons are made with the results published in other pertinent references.
3- More details about the selection of the design parameters should be provided for better understand.
4- What is the new of this research?
5- In simulation part, the procedure is too brief to reproduce for interested readers. Some parameters should be given.
6- A general revision of the text is necessary, because there are small typing problems.
7- What are the differences between this work and previous work for controller algorithm?
8- The presentation quality for simulation results should be further improved. Moreover, the physical meaning for the discussion for results should be given, which is very important.
9- The reference list must be updated.
Experimental design: NA
Validity of the findings: NA
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: DESIGN OF A ROBUST ACTIVE FUZZY PARALLEL DISTRIBUTED COMPENSATION ANTI-VIBRATION CONTROLLER FOR A HAND-GLOVE SYSTEM
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The English writing is clear and professional, and the structure of the paper is easy to follow.  The literature references have been updated by including more recent research. Moreover, the authors have solved the problems with the shared raw data, the raw data have been updated.
Experimental design: I consider the paper is into the scope of the journal. Moreover, the proposed control scheme is described in detail, and stability proof is also presented.
Validity of the findings: The performance of the proposed fuzzy PDC controller is compared against the PID and AFC controllers. The proposed control scheme proved to be superior in suppressing the vibration experienced by the user. Moreover, the proposed controller is robust to changes of hand masses.
Additional comments: The authors have followed the suggestions and comments to improve the manuscript quality. I have no further questions.


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: DESIGN OF A ROBUST ACTIVE FUZZY PARALLEL DISTRIBUTED COMPENSATION ANTI-VIBRATION CONTROLLER FOR A HAND-GLOVE SYSTEM
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors made all of my comments. So, I accept the paper for publication in PeerJ CS.
Experimental design: NA
Validity of the findings: NA
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: A SURVEY ON COMMON CRITERIA (CC) EVALUATING SCHEMES FOR SECURITY ASSESSMENT OF IT PRODUCTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Quite a long article (35 pages) written in clear technical English. Short reference to existing literature: lines 91-107 and only two pages of bibliography. Abstract and Introduction describe broad and cross-disciplinary issues of interest for a large audience. The paper body is written for field professionals and practitioners with a lot of acronyms (two acronym lists could help reading: a list of organizations/standards, and a list of activities/processes/tasks) most of them defined (ECR, VR, TRRT ...) but some not defined even if require the same level of field knowledge (PCI, PP ...). Some acronyms are first introduced (SER, OR in Table 1 between lines 228 and 229) but defined later (SER, line 364; OR, line 371). Most tables are split in different pages: the "continuation" indication is present in tables 1-4 but not in table 5. Even if Common Criteria is a well established area of research, most of the bibliography sources are quite recent. The title refers to "Evaluating IT Products" but does not mention that Common Criteria is for IT Security Evaluation that could be an element taken into consideration when deciding of reading or not reading the paper. Something such as: "A Survey on Common Criteria Evaluating Schemes for IT Security Products Evaluation" could give a clearer idea of the subject.
Experimental design: An extensive investigation is performed at high level of detail. To improve politically correctness lines 863-864 could be rewritten: "Best practices to be followed while establishing a new country scheme" or similar. The survey methodology is consistent with the full coverage of the subject and sources are adequately cited. To improve legibility of reader with limited knowledge of the matter but interested in the field, Figure 3 should be introduced and explained before line 181.
Validity of the findings: Being a review of four best practices, novelty is limited but the paper could be of help for people interested in improving evaluating processes by comparing different schemes. Conclusions are limited to a few lines (1046-1054) and do not help in giving an idea on which of the cited schemes appears to be more friendly and/or more effective. An indirect valuation of the best practice is given from line 863 to line 1045. As for future work (Open challenges) the description is again (as in the Introduction) at a very high level (strategy for security evaluation of cyber networks) in conflict with the body of the paper dealing with the security evaluation of individual products. Also examples of the classes of products that have passed through the Common Criteria evaluation process could be useful (the interested reader can find the areas of application and the number of the verified products in the Common Criteria web pages): access control devices, boundary protection, detection devices, smart cards, mobility, networks, etc.
Additional comments: I appreciated the paper and I would help the authors in reaching a broader audience. The paper gives an idea of the complexity of producing good software to students.


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 SURVEY ON COMMON CRITERIA (CC) EVALUATING SCHEMES FOR SECURITY ASSESSMENT OF IT PRODUCTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This research summarizes functional requirements, assurance levels and methodologies for the evaluation of IT products through Common Criteria (CC), a well-recognized international standard to ensure security functionalities. A comprehensive comparative analysis of four well-known schemes has been provided. There is no question on the significance of the presented area of research as this research work proposes CC evaluation framework along with best practices and guidelines to assist certificate consuming members to gain signatory status and carry out CC evaluation.

The manuscript is well structured and explains the proposed framework in reasonable style. However, there are few suggestions (mentioned below) that might help to improve the manuscript quality.

1). Tables are referenced out of order, i.e. Table 4 is referenced (line 195) before Table 1 (line 228). Same is true for Table 3 and Table 2.

2). The paragraphs starting from lines 715, 719, 726, 733 and 738 require proper headings such as Validity Period, Cost, Withdrawal Procedure, Certification Marks and Termination of Agreement etc. respectively.

3). As the manuscript has lot of acronyms, so addition of an acronyms table can improve the readability.

4). The manuscript also has some typos and grammatical problems and needs to be revised.


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 SURVEY ON COMMON CRITERIA (CC) EVALUATING SCHEMES FOR SECURITY ASSESSMENT OF IT PRODUCTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: .
Experimental design: .
Validity of the findings: .
Additional comments: Summary: The paper deals with a detailed examination of the Common Criteria (CC) evaluation schemes for evaluating IT products. First the paper gives a quick overview of CC, by listing its objective and structure. Then it identifies, in a list of countries which all adopt and deploy CC to some extent, four countries that do so more and better than others and for which data are available. Subsequently, each of these four countries is examined in detail, with respect to how much and how well (with respect to the CC specification) they implement CC. This exam is carried out independently for each country. Starting from such exams, a comparison is carried out between these four countries, with respect to a series of parameters which reflect the requirements of CC. At last, from such a comparison the authors identify a best practice list of suggestions about how to implement effectively and efficiently a CC scheme.

Clarity of language: The paper is understandable, though quite long and detailed, and is written in reasonable english. I think however, that more attention could be paid to the language correctness; see the attached paper with some suggested corrections (not applied to the whole paper, as it is quite long).

Originality: The paper is quite analitycal and examines in detail the deployment of CC in some significant countries. This part may be interesting for the specialist reader, but is not really original. The original part is the best practice guideline list for realizing a good CC scheme, or for improving an existing one.

Comment: The paper is very analytical, as said, and in this sense it can be useful for those readers
who wish to have an overview of CC, and to study some cases where CC is applied with some extensiveness and success. This part of the paper does not seem to be significantly original, anyway. The originality is all in the proposal of a series of guidelines for deploying a good CC scheme. However, such a series of guidelines is obtained by extracting examples from the previous analysis. It is not easy, if ever possible, to evaluate its quality. I would have appreciated that, at least, the proposed scheme had been compared to those of the four chosen countries, to identify those parts where they diverge from the proposed one, or where a feature of the proposed one is simply not realized. Such a backward comparison might be useful to appreciate better the novelty and possibly the effectivess of the best practice suggestions provided by the paper.


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: FURTHER ENHANCING THE IN SITU VISUALIZATION OF PERFORMANCE DATA IN PARALLEL CFD APPLICATIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The text is generally easily readable fulfilling the needs of the journal.
There are some presentation issues that should be improved though.

1) Abstract
It reads a bit awkward and should be rewritten particularly related to the relationship to the previous publications.
I wouldn't start with "This paper continues the work initiated" but rather with the motivation (2nd sentence).
Then I do not care which paper there was. I would say: In previous work, we developed XX and YY.
In the introduction, you can clarify what exactly you did compared to previous work (and you actually did so).

"also in codes without in situ" => In this article, the tool is extended allowing users to visualize performance data on a 3D representation of the hardware resources ... Visualization can be performed post-mortem or in situ using Catalyst...

2)
There are sections where various commas could be added after introductory clauses; they should be added for readability.

3)
The presentation of listings in Figures 3, 4, 12 should be improved.

4) Evaluation
There surely is plenty of information in Figures 6+. The description feels initially a bit rough and the organization should be improved.
The first three images are presented and then explained. I felt a bit left alone trying to understand various information from the first paragraph but then couldn't figure it out. I would reorganize this text a bit, first describe the concept, Line 216ff. Help readers to understand, guide them better through even the first image, then go to the next.
I would absolutely not start with Fig 6 as there is way too much info here.

5) There are often too many sections in (), you can try to shorten sentences and rather break them into two.
Experimental design: The experimental design validates the new presentation mode using standard benchmarks.
The design itself is reasonable given the nature of this article.
However, the presentation of it shall be improved (see notes).
Validity of the findings: The approach is sufficiently novel that it deserves publication. I can see that there are cases where this is useful.

However, to me, the article reads slightly a bit like a manual instead of a research paper. I would have been intrigued if a study would have been made that actually shows that this presentation is beneficial for users. I know that would have been not easy.
But as there can be X-papers that claim arbitrary new ways of presentation, the question is, is the given presentation useful. Personally, I find it potentially helpful but also quite cluttered with messages. I would be interested in qualitative analysis.

The conclusions are mostly well stated, the key issue is sometimes to assess "effectivity" of a presented result. The analysis of the figures is rather subjective and hence a bit speculative and not as clear as the article states. I would welcome more discussion about the quality of the approach. For instance, saying something like "It is effective to identify X", the question is why couldn't this be analyzed in existing tools? Maybe another (sub)section can be added that discusses the findings critically and puts them into the perspective of existing tools.
Additional comments: 33. "high-tuned" => tuned
40. remove () around generated...
48. Figure 1 should include "coprocessor" (it isn't actually shown!)
75. "None of the existing performance analysis tools incorporates sophisticated output visualization." => You sure to leave the statement? I believe Vampir does have somewhat sophisticated vis...
81. (Hydra) => Hydra
99. (in the hyperlink) => But this is not linked; not good to have it hidden, remove this reference. I would prefer also a proper reference to ParaProf. Much better would be to use footnotes, a practice you use on page 4... Be consistent!
162. The selected functions.... => this sentence isn't clear, add one more. Clarify why "independently". Some readers are not aware of how this works...

The presentation of listings in Figure 3 and 12 should be improved.
Figuer 4. Remove extra whitespace.

181. "statistical oscillation of the run time too" => clarify the footnote.
211. "x = 0 plane" => I struggle to find x=0 in the figure.

Fig 6 caption => "with different [visualization] parameters"
How do they actually differ?

Fig 10 "and not (bottom)" => "or not (bottom)"

I find the order of Table 1 + 2 not intuitive, I would have started with baseline, then +Score-P, then +plugin.
Would get rid of an awkard naming "++plugin" in Line 277.
It isn't clear from the table that "running time" includes the relative overhead as well.
Again: if you start with baseline, you could just say overhead "12%", cause nobody needs the actual runtime for these anymore.

330. Use a footnote for the GitHub link.


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: FURTHER ENHANCING THE IN SITU VISUALIZATION OF PERFORMANCE DATA IN PARALLEL CFD APPLICATIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: English is okay, I have found no significant typos in the text, except perhaps in Line 235 where the phrase could be clarified. The authors cite literature correctly although further discussion about the differences is missing (see my complete review below, in the "General comments for the author" box). Raw data about overhead measurements and collected traces are unavailable so authors could make them available thought some perenial archive such as Zenodo (from CERN). Content is not fully self-contained because in the Related work section authors refer to the VI-HPS (lines 97 and 98) using a URL link and not scientific references. The reviewer went to that website and fail to see "an extensive list of them [many software tools]". Perhaps citing the works individually would be better.
Experimental design: My concern here is about the variability of the results (see my complete review below, in the "General comments for the author" box). The method about the overhead analysis is not fully described. How the experiments have been conducted: were they randomly sorted prior to execution? What is the experimental design (using the Jain's book from 1991 terminology). ISBN: 978-0-471-50336-1.
Validity of the findings: Although the software has been provided in a lab's gitlab installation, no raw data (traces, measurements, scripts) is available. See my other comments about the validity of the findings in my complete review below, in the "General comments for the author" box.
Additional comments: The article "Further Enhancing the in Situ Visualization of
Performance Data in Parallel CFD Applications" presents results on
using scientific visualization tools such as ParaView to depict
performance metrics collected from CFD codes. The work is possible
through a connection between a Score-P plugin, capable to collect
performance data, and Catalyst, from ParaView, for visualization. The
work described here is incremental because previous author's work have
not dealt with the mapping of communication performance metrics and
the simulation's geometry. The base idea relies in combining the 3D
visualization of the computational resources with the performance
metrics of the application executing on that platform. Validation is
carried out with MG and BT from NAS, as well with Hydra, which is okay
because it has both known benchmarks and a real HPC application.

_Related Work_

The same authors themselves have already published articles with very
close contributions to the topic of this submission, including the
usage of same figures (that are repeated from these previous
publications), here:

2019
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-48340-1_31 "In
Situ Visualization of Performance-Related Data in Parallel CFD
Applications" Rigel F. C. AlvesEmail authorAndreas Knüpfer

and here:

2020
https://superfri.org/superfri/article/view/317 "Enhancing the in Situ
Visualization of Performance Data in Parallel CFD Applications Rigel
F. C. Alves, Andreas Knüpfer" http://dx.doi.org/10.14529/jsfi200402

The difference of this submission against those ones is basically
stated in a paragraph in the introduction. In 2019, authors map
metrics from code regions. In 2020, authors map metrics from
communication operations. In these past contributions, performance
metrics are always mapped to the simulation's geometry (the object
being simulated by the HPC application). In this submission, authors
replace such a simulation's geometry by an 3D object that depicts
the computational resources.

The idea in itself (performance metrics on top of a 3D representation
of the computational resources) remains without novelty because
several other works in the past have already proposed such
features. Some of them are cited in this work (second paragraph), but
authors fail to state the differences of this submission against them.

Regarding the limitation of Score-P/Vampir about application's
iteration tracking, paramount to many performance analysis activities,
have been alleaviated by manually instrumenting the application code
and inserting a region called "Iteration". Thanks to the fact that
regions can be stacked, with a bit of data science manipulation, you
can classify all events per iteration in a post-processing
phase. Refer to these publications were this method has been already
employed:
1. Temporal Load Imbalance on Ondes3D Seismic Simulator for Different
   Multicore Architectures Ana Luisa Veroneze Solórzano, Philippe
   Olivier Alexandre Navaux, Lucas Mello Schnorr.
http://hpcs2020.cisedu.info/4-program/processed-manuscripts
2. Optimization of a Radiofrequency Ablation FEM Application Using
   Parallel Sparse Solvers. Marcelo Cogo Miletto, Claudio Schepke,
   Lucas Mello Schnorr.
http://hpcs2020.cisedu.info/4-program/processed-manuscripts
So, when you write "We will then advance the state-of-the-art by
introducing tracing per time-step itself." note that many others have
already been doing a very similar operation (from the implementation
perspective) as a data science procedure.

_Results_

Generally, the 3D views on Figures 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 are too
dark. They should have a white background or a more light background.

The compute nodes id numbers in the right-hand side of Figure 6, when
you write Line 216-217, is a gradient color, but understand that there
are no node with id number 1.5 or 2.5 (as shown in the respective
legend). Perhaps using fixed colors such as the left of Figure 6 to
identify compute nodes would be better in a small scale scenario
relying on gradient colors only when you don't have enough fixed
colors to depict (with some sort of threshold for this). In a general
sense, I had some trouble understanding this association (gradient
color and id number), so perhaps adding some manual annotation in the
figures with arrows and letters could help the reader to identify
precisely what you want the reader to see, or stating "gradient color
legend" in the text would help. About the fixed colors, the order on
which they appear in the legend should be the same order they appear
in the 3D object, so, from top-to-bottom, Machine, Package, L3, L2,
L1d, Core, PU. It is clear here that you disregard hyperthreading in
the visualization, but probably you are representing only physical PU.

The "Results" section (Sec 3.2) presents the 3D views and discuss
their capabilities. Most of section 3.2.1 (NPB-oriented) presents
technical aspects of the visualizations themselves to make the reader
understand and interpret them (the choice of depicting outwards
messages downward in the view, the choice of depicting compute nodes
as places and their inherent internal struture from the HW hierarchy,
and so on). The only part the authors do the performance analysis
activity itself appears by the very end of Section 3.2.1 (Lines 253,
254), and in Section 3.2.2 (Hydra-oriented). My general feeling about
the paper, regarding the so-called "results", is that it presents more
technical aspects of the 3D views, showing more "Hey, look how the 3D
views work" instead of *using the 3D views to actually do some
performance analysis work*, which you have briefly attempt on those two
parts I mentionned above. What I would suggest is that the 3D views
should be employed in an exploratory and them a specific performance
analysis to clearly identify a performance problem. Please note that
in such type of BSP applications - with a bunch of iterations with
compute/communication phases - performance problems are generally
anomalies in a few ranks. How would you detect these anomalies in
Figure 10 for instance?

In all the views you have show, you select "an arbitrary
time-step". So, your views are iteration-oriented. It is very probably
that the accumulated metric you are depicting hides important
flutuaction (delays in only a subset of ranks, etc) in the metrics, so
I wonder how would you cope with the "temporal aspect" of such
metrics. Vampir (and much of the other tools focused on MPI/OpenMP/GPU
realm) has a timeline, it is in the core of the tool. Here in these 3D
views, such a timeline is absent. How do you see the temporal
evolution them? How do you compare two iterations? Or several? Or a
trend that appears in several iterations? Such types of limitations of
the views should be more clearly stated or developed.

_Overhead_

Baseline refers to the "pure simulation code" and then you present the
time with the plugin and with score-p only (Tables 1 and 2). The first
thing I don't grasp is how the execution can be faster (-1%) when you
have score-p. That does not make sense because you are doing more
things. I'd suggest to correctly incorporate variability analysis
(check measurement distribution, standard error based on the verified
assumption of a given type of distribution, etc) in your
interpretation. For example, in Table 2 you have "-1%" of MG but your
baseline has a standard deviation of +- 2%. So, that "-1%" might not
be significant after all.  So I agree in part when you write "the
plugin’s or Score-P’s footprints lie within the statistical
oscillation of the baseline results" but I find those percentages
weird because they do not reflect the variability of the plugin or
scorep measurements but their relation with the baseline. I agree "in
part" because the running time of Hydra is 12% slower than the
baseline. This should be more clearly marked, helping to extend the
runtime overhead analysis that is. in its current state, too brief
(only three lines 304-306).

_Notes_
- There is an excessive usage of footnotes (see Pg11/15 for
  instance). Footnotes usually break the reading flow so I'd recommend
  either incorporating your discussion in the text (if they are
  paramount to understanding) or removing them.

_Summary_

The paper is interesting in itself because it is a new effort in 3D
visualization of performance metrics. This comes after several other
efforts targetting the same goal in past years. I wonder why those
efforts do not appear more often in papers that focus on the
performance analysis of HPC applications instead of proposing
methods. I pay attention to the fact that very frequently 3D views
appear in related tools but they fail to actually be useful in a
realistic performance analysis procedure. So, my concerns are:
1. discussion of the differences against related work (other attempts
   that depict very similar views of this contribution's topology
   view)
2. the usefulness to clearly detect performance problems and then,
   after the fix, use the same visualization to show that the problem
   is gone.


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: FURTHER ENHANCING THE IN SITU VISUALIZATION OF PERFORMANCE DATA IN PARALLEL CFD APPLICATIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The basic reporting needs to be improved in several wahy

Writing
----------

Overall the text is readable and mostly understandable. However, it needs significant wordsmithing to make it actually easily readable. It contains a lot of text in parentheses that makes reading less easy. Sometimes formulations are not optimal and order of words is wrong, see e. g.
- line 20: "added to such plugin"
- line 88: the developer is referred to with the pronoun "it"
- line 123: "The objective aimed by this ..."
- line 139: "to the simulation original geometry" -> add 's
- line 182: "whereas BT for 1000"
- line 182: "The plugin would generate". Why "would"? Does it or does it not?
- line 256: "generate automatically" -> adverbs usually should be in front of the verb not behind it
- line 256: "onto a file" ... more commonly "into" than "onto"
- line 264: What does "Inclusively" mean here?
- line 295: "somewhen" is archaic. Use "sometime".
- lines 326: "do not use to be"

It appears a bit strange to me to read the judgement "a fine example" if the authors refer to their *own* previous work. (line 34)

I found a *central* part (lines 65 to 79) of the introduction not to be well well understandable. What does the "flipping" mean in detail? What does "performance ... inside in situ" mean in contrast to "in situ inside performance"?

The statement in Line 166 is at the section level and describes what will be discussed on the subsection level, while the related statement in line 206 is on the subsection level and describes what is discussed in the subsection. This is inconsistent.

What does "in the hyperlink" in line 99 refer to?

I was surprised to see that acknowledgements section is mentioned (line 86) in the description of how the paper is organized. I have never seen that before and I would remove it.

In line 143/144 the paper talks about "the generation of ... files ...(by means of the VTK ...". Ar the files really *generated* by VTK  or are they *visualized* using VTK?

Finally, stating that one has "extended our software" in the first line of the conclusion does not seem appropriate. The software should be explicitly named here. In other words:  Which software?

References
---------------

The related work section appears to list relevant overview literature.

At some other places in the paper, however, I am missing references supporting specific statements and claims:
- Line 50: References supporting the claim "for decades" are needed.
- Line 97: A reference where to fin the "Tools Guide" is needed.
- In line 177: "modified Class D" should be explained or a reference explaining it needs to provided.

Figures
----------
In general the figures demonstrate the proposed approach well.  Unfortunately, they are not always as clear as possible.

My main problem with the figures is, that it is often hard know which color bar shows the scale for which of the visualized data. This has several reasons.
First, the coloring used is sometimes the same for different quantities but the color bars are only shown in the corners of the images. A relation between color bar and the parts of the visualization where they are used is thus hardly possible without very carefully reading the text. Additionally, most of the needed descriptions are only provided in the running text and not in the caption.
Second, the meaning of the values at some of the color bars is unclear. E. g. the switch_id for example has values between 0 and 1.2e-38. I assume that bot ends of the scale are simply referring to the same zero value. But this is obscured by the values next to the color bar.
Experimental design: The very basic experiments appear to be well designed. Two common benchmark applications as well as one industry application are used to illustrate the software's performance and memory overhead as well as the resulting visualizations.

An evaluation of or even expert comments on the usefulness of the presented approach is missing entirely.

Thus the paper demonstrates that the approach can be used but not that is actually useful. A discussion of how the new approach/tool helped or even could help an expert user is needed
Validity of the findings: no addition comments
Additional comments: The paper presents an interesting approach/tool for enhanced performance analysis in highly parallel computation application. Demonstration of the usefulness and the writing need to improved to make the paper ready for publication. To allow for these improvements to be made, I recommend a major revision.


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: FURTHER ENHANCING THE IN SITU VISUALIZATION OF PERFORMANCE DATA IN PARALLEL CFD APPLICATIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is mostly the same compared to the last iteration.
Minor improvements have been made.

Regarding related work:
Given the new Example 3.2.2, the important related work of "2D Communication Views" should be discussed in the article.
2D communication matrices have been used in Vampir and other tools, e.g.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Wagner-45/publication/284440851/figure/fig7/AS:614094566600711@1523422962550/Vampir-communication-matrix-taken-from-GWT14_W640.jpg
https://apps.fz-juelich.de/jsc/linktest/html/images/linktest_report_matrix.png

As it stands the hypothesis that the view is effective for performance analysis is not sufficiently supported.

Some replies to modifications made:
I agree with most of the changes made.
> Regarding the "x = 0 plane", the reader doesn't need to worry too much about finding
I believe it then is not wise to mention this in Line 216. I spent quite some time trying to find the network information in the figure. Maybe the horizontal bar at the end, what can we see there in the first place? This description should be removed as in this figure we cannot see anything useful. It is discussed in Figure 7 as well where it makes sense.

Not using syntax highlighting in the code presentations in Figure 13 is not acceptable for me. In Figure 3 you could at least use bold font to increase readability a bit. The coloring makes sense but maybe the ifdefs then could be removed to spare space and well it doesn't add new information...
Experimental design: The experimental design still has its major weakness to answer the question: is the 3D visualization effective for analysis?

The example in Section 3.2.2 Industrial CFD Code is not convincing to show that the 3D visualization is superior to a 2D visualization.
I would claim that the issue pointed out here (too many comms and empty ones during the iterations) can be visualized using 2D communication views and there can even be better seen.
It has been claimed by authors of the same team those visualizations are effective to identify those issues.
You must include the 2D visualization as related work and show that your example is more effective -- differentiate your work from this analysis method that had been used effectively in the past. I'm convinced you know about these methods and wonder why they haven't been included and discussed here.
If it isn't a good example, then you need to find a better example or do a quantitative study.
Validity of the findings: The paper is a minor increment from the authors' last paper version.
Generally, I believe the 3D visualization has its merits, however, the paper is not yet convincing.
Additional comments: Given the unsatisfactory reply of the authors to the key issue, the minimal changes made in the article for resubmission, and the issues raised by reviewers regarding the contribution, now, I have more reservations about the article than before. Is there no reasonable example that shows the benefit of 3D visualization? If it is just a matter of time to create such an example, then bring it on - particularly as the last article of you included quite some aspects of this paper. The novelty of this article here would be to me to demonstrate the merits of 3D visualization.

At the moment, the contribution remains too weak for me to justify publication in the journal - it would be OK for an applied workshop. Please continue the interesting research and demonstrate to the readers the merit.


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: FURTHER ENHANCING THE IN SITU VISUALIZATION OF PERFORMANCE DATA IN PARALLEL CFD APPLICATIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: After reading the diff file sent by authors, I have found no significant typos in the text. The issue in the text that I have previously identified has been fixed. Authors have improved the discussion and the differences against other works. Raw data, whenever possible (copyright issues), has been made available through the DOI 10.25532/OPARA-119. The issue of lines 97 and 98 has been fixed by citing ParaProf directly.
Experimental design: The experimental design (factors, response variables, replications) is very synthetic in the sense that only a few factors and response variables are involved. That being said, such simplistic experimental design seems sufficient to generate the study cases to evaluate the approach, so it's okay.
Validity of the findings: My first major concern (summary of my previous review) was "discussion of the differences against related work (other attempts that depict very similar views of this contribution's topology view)". Authors very briefly compare themselves against RW in Section 1 ("Related Work") arguing that the main drawback of existing solutions are that they have developed a 3D viewing tool on its own instead of using an existing generic visualization tool as authors of the submitted manuscript do. So, the argument is purely implementation/technical and not scientific. I rather prefered a discussion about how the 3D views of the current work differ from the 3D views that have been implemented in those previous work, from the perspective of a performance analyst. Just to give you an idea, a very simplistic 3D topology/hardware view has been already proposed in the Triva tool. What is the difference between those views and yours?  The V1 version has show no more ellaborate discussion about this specific point. Se my first concern remains.

Authors have improved the results section to report the back and forth of the performance analysis/optimization with the real application. So I feel the result is more consistent now. Consequently, my second concern about usefulness is satisfied. In addition, raw data has been made available (DOI). It includes PDF files with the SLURM output (containing the measurements for the evaluation tables) and VTU files for the visualization.
Additional comments: I understand that many comments are a matter of style, I left to the editor to decide whether they are important or not for this journal.


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: FURTHER ENHANCING THE IN SITU VISUALIZATION OF PERFORMANCE DATA IN PARALLEL CFD APPLICATIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is easier to read after the revision because most of the explicit criticism regarding the writing has been addressed.

One of the issues I mentioned that has not been addressed is the following:
>>I found a *central* part (lines 65 to 79) of the introduction not to be well well understandable. What does the "flipping" mean in detail? What does "performance ... inside in situ" mean in contrast to "in situ inside performance"?<<

I did reread this part and still have problems to understand the actual meaning. So I believe other readers will have the same problem. The authors should try to reformulate this or provide additional information/description/explanation on its meaning and impact.

Further, change "for decades" to "a long time" does not eliminate the need for reference(s) to support this claim.

Regarding the color bar labels: Their format *can* be changed in ParaView: see 6.3 and 10.2.4 here: https://www.paraview.org/paraview-downloads/download.php?submit=Download&version=v5.8&type=data&os=Sources&downloadFile=ParaViewGuide-5.8.1.pdf Also the placement of the color bar can be influenced.
Experimental design: In this revision, the experiments have been extended and do show the usefulness of the method now.
Validity of the findings: No additional comments.
Additional comments: The paper has been significantly improved in this revision. This brings it close to be ready for publication. I recommend to accept the paper after a *minor* revision addressing my new 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: IDENTIFYING VULGARITY IN BENGALI SOCIAL MEDIA TEXTUAL CONTENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper aim is to distinguish between vulgar/non-vulgar categories using lexicon-based and ML based approaches. The authors introduce a dat set of 7000 reviews and have annotators tag them for vulgarity at review level.

Deep learning is a type of machine learning, the paper presents them as different.

The first sentence in the abstract is wrong, at least according to the citations it mentions as a reference. In (Cachola et al 2018), vulgarity is defined at a word level, and is not used to express emotion in language. Actually, in (Holgate et al 2018), express emotion was just one out of 6 functions of vulgar words identified.

Another major issues is that slang is equated to obscene and vulgar words (27-28), which is not true e.g. 'luv' is a slang word, but is neither obscene or vulgar.

In general, it is unclear what the authors refer to by vulgarity at a sentence/review level throughout the paper and in the annotation task, as it seems the definition changes quite a bit (e.g. line 1 vs line 35, line 49).
Experimental design: SGD - that's not a ML method, is an optimization method for a tehnique like LR or SVM. I thin the author may be referring to SGD classifier function in sklearn, which optimizes a loss that can be associated to one of the above models.
Validity of the findings: The lexicon-based methods should be evaluated for precision as well, as these is a gold set for annotations, rather than assume precision is 1. If precision is indeed 1, then the F1 score for the bengvullex method is better than the ML methods on the drama review dataset and probably also best on the subject-person data set.

Based on these findings, the discussion section of the paper seems to be misguided.

The class imbalance can be handled through various approaches, including instance weighting and over/under-sampling.

For metrics, one could also use macro-F1, if we care about both classes equally.
Additional comments: Agreement between annotators is good, so dataset could be a useful resource if the authors make the concept they annotated clear (rather than vulgarity, it's probably more like offensiveness).

Based on this task definition, the work is not very novel. Previous work on related tasks was done even for Bengali in particular (https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.09686).

Due to its current popularity and good results, authors should have tried to train a BERT-based model.


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: IDENTIFYING VULGARITY IN BENGALI SOCIAL MEDIA TEXTUAL CONTENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Generally the article is structured in a professional way. However, following are a few suggestions for improvement.

The citations are mixed up with running text causing the difficulty in reading. Please check the guidelines for authors to improve the citation format.

Use definite values (instead of writing "over" or "around" etc.): line 33, 52, 56, 74, 122, 156, 158, 171, 173, 219, 231, 233, 236, 253, 281. Why the accuracy is in a range (80%-90%)? It should be exact scores unless there's a technical reason for indefinite values?

There may be a separate section of "Annotation Guidelines".

Following are suggestions for improvement of language:
  line 67: "As social ..." ==> "Since social ..."
  line 76: "Analysis the presence" --- not understandable
  line 98: "As many ..." --- missing "There are"
  line 100: why "approximately" --- use exact figure if possible/known
  line 105: "labeled data Ishmam..." --- missing any boundary/separator
  line 188: "We" ==> "we"
  Table 4: column 5 heading: "PVul" ==> "pVul"

Figure 1,2,3: add English transliteration and translation for understanding of reader

Formula for F1 score is not mentioned.
The columns of each table should be described in the text or in the caption.
The rows or cells having the highest scores should be BOLD in the result tables.
Experimental design: Methods described with sufficient detail except the following:

There is no information about separating Training and Test partitions.
     If Training and Testing is same then it's certainly over-fitted result.
     If it is due to cross-validation then this fact should be explicitly stated.
Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided and the conclusions are well stated.
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: IDENTIFYING VULGARITY IN BENGALI SOCIAL MEDIA TEXTUAL CONTENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Author addresses very interesting and challenging problem i.e., Identifying vulgarity in Bengali social media content. Overall paper is well written but here some comments that needs to be addressed.
Minor Comments
1. Add English description against each example of Bengali for better understanding.
2. Add 1 to 2 liner details of Machine Learning and Deep learning algorithms used.
3. Include more literature review on overall and resource poor languages like
a) Thomas Davidson, Dana Warmsley, Michael Macy, and Ingmar Weber. 2017. Automated hate speech detection and the problem of offensive language. In Eleventh international aaai conference on web and social media
b) Elisabeth Eder, Ulrike Krieg-Holz, and Udo Hahn. 2019. At the Lower End of Language—Exploring the Vulgar and Obscene Side of
German. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Abusive Language Online. 119–128
c) Paula Fortuna and Sérgio Nunes. 2018. A survey on automatic detection of hate speech in text. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 51, 4
(2018), 1–30.
d) Khawar Mehmood, Daryl Essam, Kamran Shafi, and Muhammad Kamran Malik. 2019. Sentiment Analysis for a Resource Poor
Language—Roman Urdu. ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing (TALLIP) 19, 1 (2019), 1–15.

4. include appropriate references where appropriate like (Ron Artstein. 2017. Inter-annotator agreement. In Handbook of linguistic annotation. Springer, 297–313) for inter annotator agreement. also include references of ML algorithms

Major Comments:
Annotation guidelines are missing. Author may take inspiration from the following paper
a) Khan, Muhammad Moin, Khurram Shahzad, and Muhammad Kamran Malik. "Hate Speech Detection in Roman Urdu." ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing (TALLIP) 20, no. 1 (2021): 1-19.
b) Rahul Pradhan, Ankur Chaturvedi, Aprna Tripathi, and Dilip Kumar Sharma. 2020. A Review on Offensive Language Detection. In
Advances in Data and Information Sciences. Springer, 433–439.
Experimental design: Need to mention parameter and hyper parameters of algorithm used.
Details of word embedding is missing.
Also mention which libraries used in experiments like Tensorflow, keras etc
Validity of the findings: No Comments
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: IDENTIFYING VULGARITY IN BENGALI SOCIAL MEDIA TEXTUAL CONTENT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article has been improved and better written now.

The figure 1 has been translated completely, however the Figure 2 is translated partially and Figure 3 is not translated at all. It would more understandable for large body of readers if the translation of all non-English expressions is provided.
Experimental design: Improved.
Validity of the findings: Better.
Additional comments: Fine.


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: PREDICTION OF EPILEPTIC SEIZURES BASED ON MULTIVARIATE MULTISCALE MODIFIED-DISTRIBUTION ENTROPY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Give the abbreviation for all the terms.

Contribution and future work to be detailed.

Check the modules of Figures 2 and 3.

Include recent papers in the references.
Experimental design: Table 1 . Comparison between different methods - For the top 3 references not given, the first one is the proposed work but the second(M-mDistEn) is published, and the accuracy mentioned in this table mismatch with the real paper. Also, give the reference for the PE.

Figure 3, Seizure alarm system  - Features extraction using module should be MM-mDistEN - Check and give the optimized flow diagram.
Validity of the findings: Justify - Performance measures given in the recent paper is higher

Gómez, C., Arbeláez, P., Navarrete, M., Alvarado-Rojas, C., Le van Quyen, M., & Valderrama, M. (2020). Automatic seizure detection based on imaged-EEG signals through fully convolutional networks. Scientific reports, 10(1), 1-13.
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: PREDICTION OF EPILEPTIC SEIZURES BASED ON MULTIVARIATE MULTISCALE MODIFIED-DISTRIBUTION ENTROPY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper seems interesting. The studies of this work is missing in literature survey.
The paper is well organized and  The work is quite interesting and significant.
(weak accept). Technically Paper is satisfactory.
Experimental design: -It would be better if authors can do some more analysis with discussion.
Validity of the findings: - The abstract is not well written, author is suggested to detail more in abstract , and must mention the novelty of the work with key findings.
Additional comments: no 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: PREDICTION OF EPILEPTIC SEIZURES BASED ON MULTIVARIATE MULTISCALE MODIFIED-DISTRIBUTION ENTROPY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper is addressing an important issue. The research question and why this research is conducted is very clear. However, the choice of the research method is unclear. There are various entropy measures and all of them perform differently. Depends on the choice of entropy the parameters chosen for a specific entropy, the results will vary. How this is justified? The results are not compared with any other techniques. A public data set is used,  hence, it should b possible to compare the results with other prediction techniques.
Experimental design: As mentioned above, the project aim and objectives are very clear and the research question is a valid question. My concern is that the paper is not very rigorous.  The literature review is rather short. For example, a comprehensive review of entropy measures are represented in "An entropy-based approach for anomaly detection in activities of daily living in the presence of a visitor" or application of Monte Carlo is described in "An entropy-guided Monte Carlo tree search approach for generating optimal container loading layouts.".
The paper should have a Related work section where a comprehensive review is presented.
Validity of the findings: The results are valid. Although, as mentioned above, some form of comparison ar required. The suggestion is to include some of the papers that used the same dataset and present their results briefly.

The selection of six parameters for the entropy measure must be expanded.
Additional comments: Remove all references to "we". All sentences should be in a passive format.
Line 82, Likewise .. I do not believe this is comparable. EEG information should b represented separately.
Line 112, provide a brief statement before section "Dataset description" is presented.
Line 167-168, the selection of six parameters must be expanded.
Line 167-175, USE: Line 167-168, ...First, time delay, \tau, and dimension, m, ... (use a comma instead of brackets to introduce the parameters.
Line 211, In Figure 5(a) and Fig 5(c) ...
Line 251, Tavg is not included in the definition.
Figure 2 is not readable.
Figure 3 is not readable.
Figure 4 does not add value and should be removed.


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: PREDICTION OF EPILEPTIC SEIZURES BASED ON MULTIVARIATE MULTISCALE MODIFIED-DISTRIBUTION ENTROPY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: OK
Experimental design: OK
Validity of the findings: Justify - Performance measures given in the recent paper is higher.
Gómez, C., Arbeláez, P., Navarrete, M., Alvarado-Rojas, C., Le van Quyen, M., & Valderrama, M. (2020). Automatic seizure detection based on imaged-EEG signals through fully convolutional networks. Scientific reports, 10(1), 1-13.

Still not convinced with the response stating time is less. for the mentioned Gomez paper in table 1, stated time as N/A. Try to give input based on further analysis.
Additional comments: OK


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: PREDICTION OF EPILEPTIC SEIZURES BASED ON MULTIVARIATE MULTISCALE MODIFIED-DISTRIBUTION ENTROPY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I am satisfied that the authors have addressed all my comments and made appropriate corrections to the paper according to my earlier comments.
Experimental design: Please see my comments above.
Validity of the findings: Please see my comments above.
Additional comments: The paper has improved in the revised version and I am happy to recommend the publication of the paper.


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: ARCHITECTURE DESIGN OF A REINFORCEMENT ENVIRONMENT FOR LEARNING SIGN LANGUAGES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The abstract is NOT satisfactory because it didn't contain the following parts:
         i.     The importance of or motivation for the research.
         ii.    The issue/argument of the research.
         iii.   The methodology.
         iv.    The result/findings.
         v.     The implications of the result/findings.
- Relevant literature review of latest similar research studies on the topic at hand must be discussed
Experimental design: - Please cite each equation and clearly explain its terms.
- What are the evaluations used for the verification of results?
Validity of the findings: - The procedures and analysis of the data is seen to be unclear.
- The discussion is very important in research paper. Nevertheless, this section is short and should be presented completely.
Additional comments: - Please improve overall readability of the paper.


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: ARCHITECTURE DESIGN OF A REINFORCEMENT ENVIRONMENT FOR LEARNING SIGN LANGUAGES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors explain why they used SUS. However, they do not indicate this in the abstract. They must add it to the abstract (mentioning SUS and the open question).
Experimental design: The user validation section (Line 360) should be reorganized for better understanding. First, indicate who the users are (377-380). Second, indicate what was done by users (393-399). Finally, explain how usability was evaluated (368-376 + 385-392).

Although the process is well detailed, I suggest:
+  It would be good to know if participants tried the web or mobile version (Lines 393-399)
+ A more extensive description of the users profile should be added (i.e., age, sex, or any information to know better those who filled out the SUS). (Lines 377-380)
Validity of the findings: I suggest a more in-depth analysis of the evaluation results, i.e.,
+ is there room for improvement?
+ Was there a difference between the users? (novices vs advanced),
+ Participant 2 sus score was the lowest, why could it happen?
+ Were the participants observed? If yes, then what details did the researchers observe?
Additional comments: Authors present the architecture of a reinforcement environment for learning sign languages. They evaluate the usability of an application (based on the proposed architecture) using SUS. The app is for LESCO.

The proposal is interesting. The contributions are well detailed. Introduction and backgroud sections are fine.

In future studies, I suggest applying questionnaires for UX evaluation (i.e., attrakdiff or UEQ) combined with SUS for a comprehensive evaluation of the tool/app.


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: ARCHITECTURE DESIGN OF A REINFORCEMENT ENVIRONMENT FOR LEARNING SIGN LANGUAGES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: .
Experimental design: .
Validity of the findings: .
Additional comments: • In the Introduction section, the drawbacks of each conventional technique should be described clearly.
• Introduction needs to explain the main contributions of the work more clearly.
• The authors should emphasize the difference between other methods to clarify the position of this work further.
• The Wide ranges of applications need to be addressed in Introductions
• The objective of the research should be clearly defined in the last paragraph of the introduction section.
• Add the advantages of the proposed system in one quoted line for justifying the proposed approach in the Introduction section.


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: ARCHITECTURE DESIGN OF A REINFORCEMENT ENVIRONMENT FOR LEARNING SIGN LANGUAGES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: - Make sure the Conclusion succinctly summarizes the paper. It should not repeat phrases from the Introduction!
Experimental design: - The authors should further add an explanation about the research method.
Validity of the findings: NA
Additional comments: There are only 2 studies from 2020 referred in this paper.

- Authors should add the most recent reference:

- Improved VGG Model for Road Traffic Sign Recognition


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: GAC3D: IMPROVING MONOCULAR 3D OBJECT DETECTION WITH GROUND-GUIDE MODEL AND ADAPTIVE CONVOLUTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I commend the authors for their work. The manuscript is written in unambiguous language with clearly labeled tables and figures. The authors did a good job of summarizing the literature. The bottleneck in the existing KITTI benchmark discussed in the article is an intriguing direction for the research community.
Experimental design: Monocular 3D Object detection has very significant applications in the context of autonomous navigation, and, thus it aligns within the scope of the journal. The manuscript describes the proposed approach in a detailed manner with the mathematical formulation backing it up. The provided implementation details and supplementary material should be enough to replicate the results.
Validity of the findings: The authors provide a comprehensive comparison of the proposed method with the literature. The ablation study also highlights the significance of the different parts of the method.
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: GAC3D: IMPROVING MONOCULAR 3D OBJECT DETECTION WITH GROUND-GUIDE MODEL AND ADAPTIVE CONVOLUTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This article put forward an approach to improve existing 3D object detection from monocular images by using depth adaptive convolution (DAP) layer and ground-guide model (GGM). The authors proposed a type of convolutional neural network incorporating the DAP and GGM.
The proposed DAP is an algorithm that leverage on the method using pixel-adaptive convolution by Su et al (2019), and then work it into the context of depth related variables for each pixel. The authors stated that the DAP objective is introduced to handle irrelevant local structures of traditional 2D convolution. However, I would like to ask the authors to elaborate more on the irrelevant local structure, in which how this DAP overcomes the existing problem and how significant it is.
The proposed GGM make use of estimating the “pseudo-position”, assume that the ground plane is flat. And then this pseudo-position is put together with output from the detection network (2D centre, orientation, keypoints, …etc) to form the matrix for regression. My comments are:
(1)	It may be okay to make the assumes of flat ground at this moment, however, the authors should explain a bit on could this approach be improved in the future to handle e.g. planar surfaces that are not necessary flat, from flat to uphill etc.
(2)	On the scaling factor of equation (18), please describe the actual sets of values that you have used and with regards to those that yield better results.

The experiment is carried using the KITTI dataset, which is commonly used in the community for algorithm testing and evaluation. The authors reported that their method yield better results in most situations as compared to existing approaches.

Others:
(1)	"Cori" in equation (9) not explained.
(2)	The second and third contribution as stated in pg3-4 seem to be fairly inter-related, therefore it would be better if you could combine them i.e. mention the GGM together with “pseudo-position” estimation.
(3)	Suggest to reword and rephrase last sentence in pg20: “Let’s put aside non-flat …” to “Thus, we do not consider non-flat ….”.

I would recommend this article to be accepted upon make the minor corrections to address all the questions that are described.
Experimental design: The experimental design is valid and sufficient comparing with existing practice. However, it would be better that in future work, the research work should capture their own data and focus more on the challenging scenarios.
Validity of the findings: The findings are valid with respect to its concept formulation and testing approach.
Additional comments: I would suggest that in the title and abstract to mention depth adaptive convolution first before ground-guided model, so that they follow the description flow of the two methods, e.g. for the title: “ … 3D object detection with depth adaptive convolution and ground-guide model”.


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: GAC3D: IMPROVING MONOCULAR 3D OBJECT DETECTION WITH GROUND-GUIDE MODEL AND ADAPTIVE CONVOLUTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Please see the general comments below.
Experimental design: Please see the general comments below.
Validity of the findings: Please see the general comments below.
Additional comments: The paper claims the contributions as follows:
1. novel depth adaptive convolution
2. pseudo-position and ground-guide module

However, there are some critical issues with the proposed method:

- The proposed depth adaptive convolution seems to be directly adapted from Su et al. However, in Su's paper, f_i, f_j represents the feature vector at a certain pixel. However, in this paper, the feature is changed to depthmap with only one single value at a certain pixel location. Then, Eq (5) should not be simply copied from the original paper, where f_i here should be a number instead of a vector.

- The intuition behind this depth adaptive convolution is not clearly stated. Taking the depth information into the convolution operation (using Eq (5)), how can that be a better way to handle "irrelevant local structure"?

- I doubt the innovation of the pseudo-position and ground-guide module.
- First, the assumption of "ground is flat" is too strong. Even in KITTI, you cannot assume the ground plane is relatively static to the camera, which means the camera poses should be always changing while driving. Therefore, the mapping in Fig. 6 should not be a unique one for all frames.
- Second, the 2D-3D transformation is just borrowed from Li, so that should not be clearly stated with proper citation.

- The experimental results are not well-organized.
For example,
1) the author should mention the IOU criterion of the results in Table 1. Other papers usually show both IOU>0.7 and IOU>0.5.
2) The baseline of Table 2 is using the default setup in Li's paper but the results are much lower than Li's paper. Why?
3) The baseline in Table 2 and Table 3 should not be the same for a fair comparison. The baseline in Table 3 should include DA.
4) Table 4 is not clear. What is the purpose to show three others depth estimation results and compare them with standard convolution? I think the proper way to show the depth estimation results should be by comparing your depth estimation results with other SOTA methods.


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: DIAGNOSIS OF HEARING DEFICIENCY USING EEG BASED AEP SIGNALS: CWT AND IMPROVED-VGG16 PIPELINE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In this study authors aimed to develop a robust intelligent auditory sensation system utilizing a pre-train deep learning framework by analyzing and evaluating the functional reliability of the hearing based on the AEP response. The proposed method outperformed the state-of-art studies by improving the classification accuracy from 57.375% to 96.87%. The subject of the paper is interesting and hopefully it will be eventually useful.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Some revisions are as follows:
(1)	In line 179, please add the units of “224*224”.
(2)	In line 211, please explain why the raw signal was converted into a time-frequency image using a “2-second” time window.
(3)	In equation 3, please the explain the “b”, “c”, “t” and “r”.
(4)	In line 334-340, please explain why the new dense layers and dropout layer were added in VGG16, and how to select the parameters like dropout value, batch size and learning rate. Or authors should compare different architectures and parameters to test model performance.
(5)	In Discussion, the content of algorithms comparisons should be moved in “Result of the Experiment and Analysis”.
(6)	There are some typos like “This operation” in line 239.


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: DIAGNOSIS OF HEARING DEFICIENCY USING EEG BASED AEP SIGNALS: CWT AND IMPROVED-VGG16 PIPELINE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: a. the article must be clearly written and use unambiguous technically correct text.  Several of them have been awarded in the attachment. Please modify other paragraphs that are easy to be ambiguous.
b. the article should include sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. Relevant prior literature should be appropriately referenced. There are already many commercial products, and their problems have not appeared in this article.
Experimental design: No.
Validity of the findings: The experimental results obtained by the author are higher than those of previous studies.
However, the author's experimental cases are too few to prove the feasibility scientifically, which needs to be highlighted in the Discussion part.
Additional comments: Scientific research on hearing impairment is of great practical significance. Early hearing screening is helpful to improve the problem. The study of this paper aims to propose a robust intelligent auditory sensation system utilizing a pre-train deep learning framework by analyzing and evaluating the functional reliability of the hearing based on the AEP response. The experimental results obtained by the author are higher than those of previous studies.However, the author's experimental cases are too few to prove the feasibility scientifically, which needs to be highlighted in the Discussion part.


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: DIAGNOSIS OF HEARING DEFICIENCY USING EEG BASED AEP SIGNALS: CWT AND IMPROVED-VGG16 PIPELINE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: The authors have modified their work and satisfied my previous comments. Therefore, from my point of view, this paper should be accepted to be published.


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: DIAGNOSIS OF HEARING DEFICIENCY USING EEG BASED AEP SIGNALS: CWT AND IMPROVED-VGG16 PIPELINE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: No further 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: ITERATIVE MULTILINEAR OPTIMIZATION FOR PLANAR MODEL FITTING UNDER GEOMETRIC CONSTRAINTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. The literature review focused on three principal categories, but there were few related research papers from 2018-2020. I suggest that the manuscript include state-of-the-arts to help readers understand the latest developments in this field.

2. In line 83, “Region growing methods are robust to noisy point clouds” should be explained in detail. Generally speaking, region growing methods suffer from noise.
Experimental design: 1. In table 2-3, with the increase of noise, MC-LSE gradually loses its advantage in Dist. Error Cluster Error, but which didn’t influence the algorithm accuracy in terms of angle error and model error. The author needs to explain it in the paper. In addition, the positions of Tables 2 and 3 may need to be switched. Because you mentioned Table 3 first in the article instead of Table 2.

2. In table4，“Table 4. Results (mean ± standard deviation) of the pre-clustering method considering different input data with respect to various levels of Gaussian noise (from 1.E-05 to 1.E-04) and viewpoints”, but there is no Gaussian noise information in the table.
Validity of the findings: Although the results showed that the proposed method was better, the methods for comparisons were old methods. Comparisons with state-of-the-art methods are necessary.
Additional comments: The manuscript presented a planar fitting model based on the least-squares estimation method (LEM). Different from the ordinary LEM, the model was robust to noises by involving the geometric constraints. The method is simple but interesting, and the article is well organized. In addition to a few comments,  I encourage the authors to check the mistakes in their manuscript to enhance the levels of paper presentation. For example,
In line42, “Computer vision plays an important role (in) providing methods for…”
In line 135, “It allow (allows) us to provide a high accuracy…”
In line 136, “with respect (to) other iterative methods…”
In line 464, “edges that belongs (belong) to different faces.”


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: ITERATIVE MULTILINEAR OPTIMIZATION FOR PLANAR MODEL FITTING UNDER GEOMETRIC CONSTRAINTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Some formatting problems will be improved such as formula annotation, table header.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This paper proposed an approach to simultaneously fit different planes in a point cloud using linear regression estimators and normal vectors to the planes with three steps: a clustering-based unsupervised step, regression-based supervised step and a reassignment step. Experimental results show the effectiveness of the proposed method. It is a nice job of providing good accuracy/speed trade-off in the presence of noise and outliers.


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: ITERATIVE MULTILINEAR OPTIMIZATION FOR PLANAR MODEL FITTING UNDER GEOMETRIC CONSTRAINTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The English need some polishing in terms of sentence construction.
Literature references are appropriate.
Figures and tables of acceptable quality.
The manuscript is self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
Experimental design: The experimental design appears to be original.
The research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful.
A rigorous investigation has been carried out.
The methods have been described in sufficient details.
Validity of the findings: The method appears to be novel.
Data have been provided and appears to be statistically sound.
Conclusions are well stated.
Additional comments: The English should be checked and few bad sentences here and there should be corrected which will make the manuscript more attractive.


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: ITERATIVE MULTILINEAR OPTIMIZATION FOR PLANAR MODEL FITTING UNDER GEOMETRIC CONSTRAINTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: no comment


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: GENACO A MULTI-OBJECTIVE CACHED DATA OFFLOADING OPTIMIZATION BASED ON GENETIC ALGORITHM AND ANT COLONY OPTIMIZATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper presents an interesting multi-objective cached data offloading optimization approach.
Experimental design: Following issues needs to be addressed.
1.	Pls. format your paper according to the journal guideline.
2.	Quantify your results in the abstract
3.	Add a gap analysis section in your introduction and also mention the research questions.
4.	Fig. 1 is generic, plz add steps specific to your solution.
5.	Discussion section is missing.
Validity of the findings: As mentioned above
Additional comments: As mentioned above


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: GENACO A MULTI-OBJECTIVE CACHED DATA OFFLOADING OPTIMIZATION BASED ON GENETIC ALGORITHM AND ANT COLONY OPTIMIZATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: -	Abstract, row 26 “GenACO” and row 38 “ACO-GA”; every non-usual acronym (for the general reader) must be explained at its first use. The extended versions of these abbreviations must be written at their first uses.
-	Row 73, “Z={3, 4,5} or Z={2.5}”. Correct: “Z={3,4,5} or Z={2,5}”
-	Row 78, “However, this method still leaves problems..”. Correct: “However, these methods still leave problems..”
-	Row 88, “resulting solution not converge quickly.”. Correct: “resulting solution does not converge quickly.”
-	Row  90, “CGACA”; every non-usual acronym (for the general reader) must be explained at its first use. The extended version of this abbreviation must be written at its first use.
-	Row 142, “Mobile Edge Computing (MEC)”. Correct: “MEC”
-	Row 227, “r0”. Correct: “r0”, It should be “r0” in the rest of the text
-	Row 250, “ct,  fr, sz”. Correct:  “ct,  fr, sz”. These notations must be used in all formulas and in the rest of the text.
-	Row 251, “w1, w2, and w3 “. Correct: “w1, w2, and w3 “. Correct notations should be used in the rest of the text
-	Row 302, “Fx”. Correct: “Fx”.This notation should be used in the rest of the text and formulas.
-	Row 339, “Appendix at the of of this”. Correct: “Appendix at the end of this”
-	Row 356, “scenarios-1b”. Correct: “scenario-1b”
-	Row 374, “ conducted by Wang et al.”. Correct: “conducted by Wang et al.(years must be written)”
-	Row 452, “Table 9 compares…”; Row 459 “..in Table 9 showed the..”. This is the same for all table-related expressions. There must be time consistency. Simple present tense or simple past tense?
-	Row 471, “..five times in a row and this led to..”. Correct: “..five times in a row, and this led to..”
-	Row 472, “..to the maximum iteration but..”. Correct: “..to the maximum iteration, but..”
-	Row 491, “Based on table 10,”. Correct: “Based on Table 10,”
-	Row 536, “algorithms plays an important..”. Correct: “algorithms play an important..”
-	“Table 5 Parameters setting”. Correct: “Table 5 Parameters settings”
-	“Table 10 A comparison of the best result from single GA, ACO, CGACA, and GenACO”. Correct: “Table 10 A comparison of the best results from single GA, ACO, CGACA, and GenACO”.
-	And other grammatical mistakes. Grammarly software and WORD spelling&grammar tool can be used.
-	In general, the whole paper must be proofread by a very good English speaker (and writer).
Experimental design: Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap. Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
Validity of the findings: 1) The r0 parameter was used in the study and it was stated that some r0 values gave better results. The authors should discuss the effect of different r0 values on the results in experimental studies by using specific ranges.
2) It is mentioned in the text that evaporation will be more on a long path and it is difficult for ants to follow this path. Therefore, In figure5, it is said that path b is shorter, but isn't path a shorter?
3) Authors should indicate the time complexity of the proposed algorithm.  The degree of complexity of this problem should be described well. Otherwise, there is a perception that the problem can be solved with classical optimization problems.
6) When comparing the results obtained, the authors show that the objective function produces more appropriate solutions than other approaches. However, statistical (Friedman's test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test etc.) methods should be used to show whether the obtained results provide a significant improvement.
7) Since the proposed approach uses a single objective function, it should also be compared with the proposed state-of-the-art approaches (grey wolf optimizer, artificial algae optimization etc.) for binary optimization and discrete optimization methods.
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: GENACO A MULTI-OBJECTIVE CACHED DATA OFFLOADING OPTIMIZATION BASED ON GENETIC ALGORITHM AND ANT COLONY OPTIMIZATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The study is about optimization of limited memory used for edge computing in the field of IoT. For this purpose, a new framework called GenACO is proposed to improve the performance of cached data optimization implemented in previous research. GenACO incorporates a solution selection probability mechanism to more reliably balance the discovery and exploitation process involved in finding solutions. Also, GenACO has two modes: cyclical and non-cyclical, it has been noted to have the ability to increase optimal cached data resolution, improve average solution quality, and reduce overall time consumption from previous research results. It has been noted that acyclic GenACO gives better results in solving cached data dump optimization.
Experimental design: The research question is about eliminating the disadvantages of the proposed ACO-GA method to solve the data dumping problem. These problems are that the execution time is quite long and the roulette wheel does not allow the solution to converge quickly. In addition, it is stated that the iteration constraints in the GA algorithm cause the GA performance to be non-optimal. For these reasons, a new hybrid method of the ACO-GA algorithm, named GenACO, framework is proposed to improve the performance of CGACA in this study.
In summary, the research question was well defined and aimed to solve an emerging problem in the field of IoT. The proposed solution for the problem includes the use of known methods as a hybrid. However, the algorithms of the proposed method are explained with unclear figures. Related methods should be made more descriptive by using pseudo code or block diagrams.
The studies conducted for the experiment and the datasets used here do not contain enough detail.
Validity of the findings: The simulation results presented in the study show that GenACO's cached data optimization reduced the objective function from 0.4374 to 0.4350. It has also been stated that the non-cyclical GenACO reduces time consumption by up to 47%. However, it is not mentioned how this result related to time was obtained.
Additional comments: In line 85, the word “Wang et al.” is written repeatedly.
The study is valuable in that it offers a solution to a current problem. However, the improvement achieved for memory space with the proposed method is very limited. The time-related gain, on the other hand, is not clearly expressed. The work is acceptable after the corrections stated in the other titles.


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: GENACO A MULTI-OBJECTIVE CACHED DATA OFFLOADING OPTIMIZATION BASED ON GENETIC ALGORITHM AND ANT COLONY OPTIMIZATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Necessary changes that I propose for the articles have been implemented.
Experimental design: Necessary changes that I propose for the articles have been implemented.
Validity of the findings: Necessary changes that I propose for the articles have been implemented.
Additional comments: Necessary changes that I propose for the articles have been implemented.


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: GENACO A MULTI-OBJECTIVE CACHED DATA OFFLOADING OPTIMIZATION BASED ON GENETIC ALGORITHM AND ANT COLONY OPTIMIZATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The study is about optimization of limited memory used for edge computing in the field of IoT. For this purpose, a new framework called GenACO is proposed to improve the performance of cached data optimization implemented in previous research. GenACO incorporates a solution selection probability mechanism to more reliably balance the discovery and exploitation process involved in finding solutions. Also, GenACO has two modes: cyclical and non-cyclical, it has been noted to have the ability to increase optimal cached data resolution, improve average solution quality, and reduce overall time consumption from previous research results. It has been noted that acyclic GenACO gives better results in solving cached data dump optimization.
Experimental design: The research question is about eliminating the disadvantages of the proposed ACO-GA method to solve the data dumping problem. These problems are that the execution time is quite long and the roulette wheel does not allow the solution to converge quickly. In addition, it is stated that the iteration constraints in the GA algorithm cause the GA performance to be non-optimal. For these reasons, a new hybrid method of the ACO-GA algorithm, named GenACO, framework is proposed to improve the performance of CGACA in this study.

In summary, the research question was well defined and aimed to solve an emerging problem in the field of IoT. The proposed solution for the problem includes the use of known methods as a hybrid.
The algorithms of the proposed method are explained with Pseudo-code. (This explanation was not clear)
The studies conducted for the experiment and the datasets used here did not contain enough detail. Authors have added an explanation.
Validity of the findings: The simulation results presented in the study show that GenACO's cached data optimization reduced the objective function from 0.4374 to 0.4350. It has also been stated that the non-cyclical GenACO reduces time consumption by up to 47%. However, it was not mentioned how this result related to time was obtained.
Authors  has been added Eq.(12) as well as an explanation of how to get this 47% saving time on lines: 520-522.
Additional comments: The study is valuable in that it offers a solution to a current problem. However, the improvement achieved for memory space with the proposed method is very limited. The corrections mentioned in the previous review were carried out.
Although the gain of the study in terms of memory is limited, I think that the study is acceptable.