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 previous Academic Editor is not available and so I have taken over handling this submission. I would like to thank the authors for carefully addressing the reviewers' concerns from the previous round and for providing a detailed response letter.
Based on the review of one of the original reviewers as well as my own, I'm happy to recommend this paper for acceptance in its current form. Well done, congratulations!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jyotismita Chaki, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The Authors implemented my remarks.
The Authors implemented my remarks.
The Authors implemented my remarks.
Please address the reviewers' comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
The language of the text is ok with only minor errors.
Literature references are ok but it would be useful to add some positions especially from authors outside China to give more international background of the paper.
The article structure is ok.
The formal results contains all material needed.
The topic of the paper is within Aims and Scope of the Journal.
The paper lacks explicitly described research gap, the goal of the paper and research questions.
Authors should add them and link to literature.
On the basis of what literature analysis they specify the research gap. On the basis of what literature positions and analysis the questions were formulated. How research goal and research questions are related to the research gap.
The description of the research methods are ok, but I think the problem statement should be described in more in-deep way.
The paper lack discussion with other literature – Authors should add it as a whole section to the paper.
The limitations of the paper should be described.
Please write what is new in your paper how it differs from others similar papers existing in per reviewed journals.
The paper focuses on a narrow but important topic. At first glance, the research seems to be suitable for publishing as it is, but after careful consideration, there are some minor changes to e made in order to fit the high expectations of the journal.
The title is appropriate, covers and reflects the topic and attractive too. The abstract is compact, well-written and understandable. The introduction highlights the context and research goals, with an appropriate literature background.
The literature review is prepared accordingly, and the relevant and important international sources are analyzed critically and analytically. The methodology is described accordingly and detailed, it helps a lot to understand the importance and logic of the results. The results are relevant and supported by the methodological toolset.
My recommendations for improving the paper:
- row 120: the sentence starts with "3." - it should be a mistyping;
- 2nd chapter: instead of "Related work" I would write "Literature review"
- 3. Start: this is the methodological description, it is better to use this term (Methodology)
- Limitations of the research should be better highlighted, preferably in the last chapter
- Implications of the research are not described.
The research can be regarded as original due to its topic, unique methodological approach, and gap-filling results.
The findings are appropriate, and well-supported by the methodology and the results/discussions.
n/a
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.