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.
In some parts, the manuscript could be more concise; For example, in the conclusion: "an issue of user conflicts
482 in context-aware environments is very interesting and being investigated by the research community." This is a bit wordy.
However, the work is a valuable contribution worth publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Arkaitz Zubiaga a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
Overall writing is approved
and all suggestions addressed
Raw data shared
The design is corrected and well explained now
Flow chart provided makes the study design understable.
Results are improvised
Proper explaination provided
Discussion is appropiate
The article is written in English and used clear, unambiguous, technically correct text. The article is conform to professional standards of courtesy and expression.
the article includes all results relevant to the hypothesis
the conclusion is appropriately stated
Methods are well described with sufficient information
Dear authors, both reviewers recommend a more precise explanation of the purpose of the work and a more straightforward structure, for example, in an IMRAD style. Please also ensure diligent proofreading before resubmission.
[# PeerJ Staff 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) #]
Raw data not shared
Hypothesis to be explicitly mentioned
Kindly explain the research design explicitly
Also research question is missing
Mention the study design in the methodology
However the manuscript is written properly, it will advisable if it follows IMRAD format
Suggestion to use inferential statistics with some test of significance like t test
The whole process is clearly mentioned
Result section can be improved by performing some more statistics
The paper presents a Multi-user conflict resolution mechanism for smart home environments which takes into account users’ special cases like illness, guest visits, exams etc. for determining a resolution algorithm and an approach to be applied to detect and resolve the users’ conflicts. These users’ conflicts are resolved using automatic, mediated as well as mixed resolution approaches.
- There are A LOT of typos and weird expressions
- The paper is full of English writing errors. Some sentences are impossible to understand. A very
complete revision and correction of this aspect is essential for publication.
- Line 318: why the use of Italic???
- Fig 5 is not readable.
- Please check your references carefully
- The experimentation presented is too long and it does not seem to be very important for validation of the proposal. It is useful only for an illustrative purpose. I highly recommend to authors to make a motivated experimentation
- The paper starts by introducing what it seems to be the problem of Multi-user conflict. While this is a real problem, the introduction contains a lot of structural and semantical errors that make difficult to read. First, the introduction is full of disconnected phrases and gratuitous statements.
- A comparison of existing research must be provided in a table
- As such the paper presents the 'what's' of the work. To improve it, I would suggest some greater justification of why Multi-user conflict resolution mechanism for smart home is important
- It would be interesting that the authors focus on what could provide their approach in solving problems currently addressed.
no comment
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.