Intelligent Modeling for In-Home Reading and Spelling Programs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The paper is well structured and very readable.

2. The background reading is very useful and comprehensive. The description of the underlying basis for the proposed work is quite solid. 

3. The justification of the components within the proposed architecture of the model can still be improved. 

4. Overall, the proposed approach is very logical and is well described. 

5. The evaluation and comparison that has been performed shows quite  remarkable results. 

6. More description can help to highlight the important findings of the comparison been made. 

7. The overall, the proposed optimization model shows good results and further comparative evaluation can still be performed to show accuracy and consistency of the results. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to thank you for your valuable comments and recommendations to improve the quality of the manuscript. The details about the modifications included in the revised version of the paper are visible in the track changes.

In order to improve the clarity of our work, we included the answers to the questions and comments in the attached document.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Add the recent data set and features 

2. Add your contribution in the introduction section 

3. Compare your work with the existing work 

4. More data analysis is required with the proper explanation 

5. What is the use of your work in the society 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to thank you for your valuable comments and recommendations to improve the quality of the manuscript. The details about the modifications included in the revised version of the paper are visible in the track changes.

In order to improve the clarity of our work, we included the answers to the questions and comments you raised in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The following are the comments to the article to improvise the quality of the article.

1. In the proposed scheme flow of activities is not clear. There should be some flow chart or activity diagram, which can explain the working of proposed scheme. It should have a clear flow of all processes i.e., which process executes first, then the next process and so on.

2. Generally, the Introduction section provides many references, but it remains unclear which problems are being solved in the cited literature, where the prior art falls short of the authors expectations and requirements for the Intelligent modelling.

3. The novelty and contribution of this paper are limited, and the disadvantages of the proposal were not clearly discussed.

4. Lagging of the mathematical modelling in this article seems to be weak and needs to be improvised. Take the sample of this article which corelate your work. 10.3390/electronics11244178

5. Comparative of the existing method to be carried out.

6. If the author needs to show the output in 3 variables, then author would have shown in 3D graphs.

7. In the conclusion section the author has compared with the other articles instead of this a separate section of Results and Discussion would have been used to discuss for the comparative things. The conclusion section to be restructured.

8. The accuracy of the Linear Regression and ANN won't have much more difference. The author needs to work still better to decrease the error rate.

9. Authors should proofread entire manuscript for grammatical mistakes.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to thank you for your valuable comments and recommendations to improve the quality of the manuscript. The details about the modifications included in the revised version of the paper are visible in the track changes.

In order to improve the clarity of our work, we included the answers to the questions and comments you raised in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Required to add more results and compare with existing work using different parameters, add the working algorithm and explain each and every steps. 

Author Response

• The research reported in this paper is an original work in the domain of technology-based reading and spelling instruction. However, the existing technologies, investigated in the detailed literature research that we carried, reported on educational models which are either rudimentary or not sufficiently described. Most the papers in this domain evaluated instructional programs as black boxes and they did not reveal the educational models used in the educational programs. The lack of details did not allow the comparison of the existing works with the model described in our paper.
• In order to explain the development steps of the proposed approach we included a diagram in the Figure 1.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This revision has done well still need to be polished.

1. Check for the mathematical modelling given in the article and in few modelling it seems to be missing of information. For clarity author can check for the previous revision.

2. Fig 5, Fig 6 and Fig 7 more tools are available to show the 3D data in form of visualization. Since the 3D data represented in form of 2D won't look good, presentation of data in this regard needs to improved a better.

Author Response

Q1. Check for the mathematical modelling given in the article and in few modelling it seems to be missing of information. For clarity author can check for the previous revision.

• The missing information were added and some equations were corrected as necessary

Q2. Fig 5, Fig 6 and Fig 7 more tools are available to show the 3D data in form of visualization. Since the 3D data represented in form of 2D won't look good, presentation of data in this regard needs to improved a better.

• We comply with the reviewer recommendations but after creating 3D diagrams we found that the scales of different parameters were not properly displayed. This problem was caused by the fact that 3D diagrams has a unique Y axis and did not show the differences between the compared items properly. Additionally, for homogeneity with the other diagrams in our paper we suggest to keep 2D illustrations for the diagrams of the Fig 5, Fig 6 and Fig 7.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx