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 authors have revised the manuscript as per the suggestions of reviewers and academic editor. Now, I am happy to accept this paper for publication in its current form.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Authors,
Reviewer 2 has raised the following concerns:
"I could not find the response to my comments, document. There is a rebuttal document (cs-91551-Rebuttal) but it does not list my comments although these were minor. The authors have included some of my comments in the revision whereas some are not incorporated although these were minor they could improve the quality of the manuscript. IF i am missing some files kindly forward them to me."
You are required to address these concerns and resubmit it.
All the comments have been addressed and the manuscript seems in good shape now.
no comment
no comment
ok
ok
ok
I could not find the response to my comments, document.
There is a rebuttal document (cs-91551-Rebuttal) but it does not list my comments although these were minor.
The authors have included some of my comments in the revision whereas some are not incorporated although these were minor they could improve the quality of the manuscript.
IF i am missing some files kindly forward them to me.
Reviewers found merit in the paper and suggested a major revision. You are required to revise your manuscript and address all the comments and suggestions of reviewers. I also have a few minor suggestions:
1) In the abstract, it mentioned that "This paper addresses the significance of focusing on such languages and introduces ViLanOCR, an innovative bilingual OCR system tailored for Urdu and English". Further, it is mentioned that "ViLanOCR leverages advanced multilingual ...". Hence, bilingual and multilingual contradicts. Authors must resolve it. Further, remove the sentence "We provide the source code, weights, training, and inferences of our models available to the reviewers." from the abstract.
2) Referencing in the entire manuscript has not been done properly. Authors are required to follow journal guidelines for the same.
3) Section 3: "PROPOSED APPROACH" has been written very concisely which is hard to follow. Authors are required to extend this section significantly, specially about the working of ViLanOCR (Vision Language-based OCR).
4) What is the difference between Section 5 (Results & Discussion) and Section 6 (Extended Study)? I would suggest to merge these two sections under "Results & Discussion).
5) Most of the Figures are not cited within the text.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** PeerJ staff have identified that the English language needs to be improved. When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). – PeerJ Staff
Authors have proposed a system namely ViLanOCR, a bilingual OCR system for Urdu and English.
The literature review must be enhanced with some more latest references.
There are some typographical and grammatical mistakes. They need to be corrected.
Use high resolution images only.
The equations should be typed only in equation editor if any.
The main contribution of the paper must be mentioned in bulleted form in the introduction section
The work done by Anjum and Khan (2020) may be written in compact form..similarly for Ul et al. ul Sehr Zia et al. (2022). There is too much of details which readers are not interested to go through. Compact them in a form which convey the proper information.
For line 231 "To validate the efficacy of ViLanOCR, we focus on the domain of handwritten medical prescriptions", may include the snapshot of the data set in the manuscript i.e., handwritten medical prescriptions
The nearest-neighbor interpolation technique used shall have upscaled images but with jaggies like edges. How was that addressed?
How where features ranked
Metrics used for evaluation need to be highlighted
What are the limitations of the study. Mention that at the end.
No comments
Its a well-written article with good scientific content and professional and scientific structure.
The experimental design is appropriate.
It is recommended is show the images associated with different augmentations employed
recommended to evaluate F1 score for yolo variants
Seems valid
The manuscript is well written.
It is recommended to include a comparison of computational costs
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.