All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The quality of the paper now meets the standard.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
After reviewing the paper three times and ensuring all errors are corrected, it's now ready for publication. I agree with and accept the paper.
no comment
no comment
no comment
Dear Editor:
I hope this message finds you well. The revisions aimed at improving clarity and overall quality have been implemented; however, I believe a few additional minor changes can further enhance the paper's rigor and readability.
1. The contribution can be presented either in bullet points (not highlighted) or as a single paragraph.
2. Ensure uniformity in the font of citation numbers; it should be either Calibri or Times New Roman.
3. Provide a title or number for the ED detection algorithm.
4. Adjust the font of Section 3.3.2 to Times New Roman to align with the rest of the paper.
5. Normalize the font size of Equation 8 to match the size of the rest of the equations.
6. In Table 5 (*Comparison...), better present citations in a regular manner, e.g., 9, 32, 38, 39, 40.
I am accepting this paper for publication as it meets our criteria for clarity and professionalism in language, provides adequate literature references and field context, adheres to standard article structure with well-presented figures, tables, and accessible raw data, and is self-contained with results relevant to the proposed hypotheses. The paper aligns with our standards of clarity, relevance, and academic rigor.
No Comments
No comments
authors have improved the article as per desired changes.
Aims & scope were addressed properly.
Validation of results were addressed properly.
authors have improved the article as per desired changes.
Please see the comments from reviewers and address them in a revision.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language should be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The article “Emotion Detection” by Khan et al., presents an emotion detection framework to address the gap left by previous work. The framework integrates the transformer model to address the issue. The article at hand is well-written, well-organized, and addresses an important real-world problem. However, the reviewer found some major issues while reviewing the article. The detailed comments are given below.
1. A section about experimental setup should be added to the paper, as well as the epochs and hyperparameters.
2. Provide more details about the use of the SoftMax function in the attention-based transformer model.
3. No diagram for an attention-based transformer is provided, better include it.
1. Since Emotion detection is an important topic, how about adding a “threat to the validity” paragraph before the discussion section?
2. The tables are well presented but no text to represent the results, more written explanations of the Tables and Figures will increase the worth of the paper.
1. The abstract of the paper doesn’t seem to have connectivity; sentence structure needs to be re-arranged/re-modified.
2. In the survey/related work section, the author needs to discuss related work from the field, not give definitions.
3. The paper does not include citations from related journal articles. Incorporating relevant citations can improve the paper's academic rigor
4. The text seems to be in a different font “where represents the spectral entropy, shows the power at the ÿý ÿÿ ÿ 2 ý/ bin of the power spectrum, and ý denotes the number of frequency bins.” Kindly check.
5. In the self-attention section, Q, K, and V should be properly defined and references should be provided.
6. The author may need to get assistance from a fluent English speaker to work on the overall grammar and structure of the paper.
The paper “Emotion detection from handwriting and drawing samples using an attention-based transformer model” is well presented and addresses a timely issue by providing solutions for emotion detection. However, there are areas that will benefit from minor refinement. I recommend accepting the article with minor edits. These suggested edits will contribute to the paper's overall quality and alignment with the journal's publication standards.
1. No experimental setup details are given. For example, how the hyperparameters were set.
1. The tables are well-organized but somewhat lacking in detail. The author should consider providing more comprehensive explanations for the tables to improve understanding.
2. Figure. 2 has no written details, why?
3. The same is the case with Table. 5 “comparison table”.
4. The author needs to add more written details to the tables in “Section 5” and “Section 5.1” to enhance the readability of the paper.
1. While the paper is well-presented, there are notable issues with sentence structure and grammar. The author may seek assistance from a fluent English speaker or Grammarly to address these concerns. E.g., Connect the sentence with the previous sentence “Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals from the user's brain are analyzed to determine their emotional state [6]”
--Also, restructuring “Expressions makes emotion detection from text a challenging problem [22]. Establishing clear and unbiased criteria for various states of emotional states becomes challenging due to individual handwriting styles may vary widely.” and others.
2. The number of citations is comparatively less as per the recent publication standards, I suggest adding more relevant citations can enhance the quality of the paper.
Article writeup is clear
Need English Language check as there are many grammatical mistakes Grammarly shows almost 300+ mistakes.
add more literature review & latest one.
Explain your methodology/algorithm in detail.
Explain your design & evaluation little bit more
Findings are clear
Table need deliberation
add appropriate references & more relevant keywords
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.