Pancyclicity of the n-Generalized Prism over Skirted Graphs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, it is proved that the n-generalized prism over skirted graphs is pancyclic. The result holds for any skirted graph.
Please argue with the importance of this research in the process of knowledge. The subject is very narrow, only three references are provided. Why is it of interest for researchers? Any applicability, any future extensions, etc. ?
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions.
- We did improve our introduction to argue that this line of research catches attention from several researchers as well as having an application in interconnecting network, please see Section 1: Introduction on pages 1 and 2 of our revised manuscript.
- We did add more references concerning this type of research. Please see Reference Section on pages 15 and 16 of our revised manuscript.
- We did add about the future extension of our research. Please lines 495-499 on page 15 our revised manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is on “Pancyclicity of the n-Generalized Prism over Reduced Halin Graphs”.
The area is nice and interesting. The comments are as follows:
- The title should be corrected. The abstract must explain the novelty in theory and methodology. The major findings must be in the last part of the abstract.
- The introduction should be the line of symmetry of the journal and research contribution.
- How do the authors prove the impact of the Graph? Prove it in this direction of these research studies (Isomorphism on generalized fuzzy graphs and image visualizations; Measure of influences in social networks)
- How does the author prove the effectiveness of n-Generalized Prism? Prove it in this direction with existing literature.
- What is the novelty for theoretical and methodological aspects?
- What is the major finding in the line of direction of the research?
The author contribution table with all these references should be given table to show the novelty of this study.
Author Response
Thank you for you comments and suggestion. Please see the file attached for our responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper the authors present new results involving the pancyclicity of the Cartesian product of a skirted graph and a path. Although I have not checked all of the finer details of the proofs, they appear to be correct. I would like to hear back on the comments contained in this report, before making a recommendation regarding publication.
Major Comments
I found the triangular parts on the lower left corners of Figures 6 and 7 confusing, as it does not appear to be part of a Cartesian product of graphs. More explanation would be be helpful.
Minor Comments
- In the fourth line of the paper, the comment, P(t,s) denotes the reversed path of P(s,t), seems irrelevant to this paper since only undirected graphs are considered.
- It would be better to use "planar" instead of "plane" when referring to graphs that can be drawn in the plane without crossing edges.
- Lines 4, 19, 38, 432, and possibly others: "cartesian" -> "Cartesian"
- Lines 53, 55, 246, 286, 359, 426, and possibly others: "hamiltonian" -> "Hamiltonian"
- Line 73: "leave" -> "leaves"
- Line 227: I would recommend changing the title of 2.2 from "Some Basis Knowledges" to simply "Background".
- Captions of Figures 4 and 6. When referring to lines with dashes, it is better to write "dashed lines" instead of "dash" lines.
Author Response
Thank you for you suggestions and comments. Please see the file attached for our responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors' aim is to 'prove that the n-generalized prism over skirted graphs is pancyclic'.
The constructions and the calculations seem correct and they are based on a previous paper by the authors.
The study is motivated by a metaconjecture1 of Bondy in 1971, Bondy.
A concrete application of their constructions would add value to the work. More bibliographic sources would be benefic.
The content is valuable. I recommend the publication modulo the above lines.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions.
- We did improve our introduction to argue that this line of research catches attention from several researchers as well as having an application in interconnecting network, please see Section 1: Introduction on pages 1 and 2 of our revised manuscript.
- We did add more references concerning this type of research. Please see Reference Section on pages 15 and 16 of our revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed my concerns. The paper was improved. In my opinion, it can be accepted in present form.
Author Response
Thank you for your time of consideration on our revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for your time of consideration on our revised manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
After starting to read through the revised manuscript, I am not convinced that it was proofread by all of the authors. I found four typographical errors (including a significant one in line 20) on the first page alone. The authors should proofread their entire paper and make sure that all errors are corrected.
Line 16: "system" -> "systems"
Line 20: "cycles of arbitrary lengths from 3 to its order" -> "cycles of all lengths from 3 to its order"
Line 24: "stats" -> "states"
Line 35: "is also extended" -> "was also extended"
Author Response
Thank you for your time to consider our revised manuscript. However, we would like to apologize on our careless typos. We will check it through again for typos and grammatical errors. Please see the file attached for responses to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
