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 paper is acceptable now.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have addressed all my previous comments. I now deem the paper acceptable for publication.
The authors have addressed all my previous comments. I now deem the paper acceptable for publication.
The authors have addressed all my previous comments. I now deem the paper acceptable for publication.
The authors have addressed all my previous comments. I now deem the paper acceptable for publication.
The revised manuscript looks ready to be published
The requested changes and suggestions are incorporated
The major revision I suggested looks incorporated.
This revision incorporates all my comments.
Revised paper based on reviewers' suggestions.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial 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:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
No comments
No comments
In the paper titled “A review of social background profiling of speakers from speech accents” authors review the speech datasets for background profiling of speakers. This paper offers a survey of recent research on automatic speech accent classification, focusing on its applications in social background profiling, particularly in areas such as speech forensics and improving speech recognition accuracy. The analysis covers datasets, speech features, and classification models used in accent classification tasks, aiming to provide a comprehensive overview and comparative analysis of performance measures. The study identifies research gaps in speech accent classification, offering valuable insights for researchers seeking to advance the field. My concerns and suggestions as below
• The introduction is not well written. There are some doubts on the applicability of social profiling from speaker accents as stated by the authors themselves. Consider line 46-48 stating that emotional characteristics are also present in speech. Do the listed studies focus on the emotional state of speaker for social profiling? Are other features of the speaker such as education, Socioeconomic status, emotional state present in the data sets? Relevant to social background profiling?
• As the article domain is interdisciplinary, are there disciplines other than forensics where speaker profiling can be applied?
• The introduction does not identify the gap in existing literature. If any reviews have been published, how does this review distinguish?
• The survey methods lack details. What was n = the initial number of articles from the keyword search? What happened to n after applying filters? What was the last value of n?
• There should be labels in figures. Use labels or full form.
• Are there any references for figure 2 and 3?
• The research directions should be itemized.
No comments
This paper surveys recent research in speech accent classification and analyses the datasets, speech features, and classification models used for the classification tasks. The aim is to provide a comprehensive overview of recent research related to speech accent classification and to present a comparative analysis of the achieved performance measures. Comprehensive descriptions of the datasets, speech features, and classification models used in recent research related to speech accent classification have been presented, with a comparative analysis of the performance measures of the different methods. This analysis provides insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the different methods. Subsequently, research gaps in speech accent classification have been identified. The idea for the review is novel but the paper needs major revisions:
The start of the introduction is poor, as a novice reader will face difficulties while grasping the information from the introduction. It should be modified according to the hourglass fashion. First, the overall field should be discussed. Later on, it should slightly move to the original contribution with a proper flow.
The author should write the article's selection criteria with a more specific selection. It seems generic criteria which may lead to huge exclusion or inclusion causing a loss of critical information in the literature selection.
This seems to be a systematic review, then why crucial steps are missing, such as protocol selection, PRISMA or Kitchenham, a complete flow of step-by-step inclusion or exclusion, total number of articles extracted, removed articles based on various factors such as full articles accessibility, etc.
Why results are missing based on factors such as year-wise publications, trends, etc.? It would be better to provide the results with pie charts etc.
The information within the tables is well presented.
Overall the article needs critical results figures of reviewed articles based on some good parameters that are normally used in systematic reviews.
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.