Next Article in Journal
Tracking of Stiffness Variation in Structural Members Using Input Error Function Observers
Next Article in Special Issue
A Prehistorical Approach to Optimal Fluctuations for General Langevin Dynamics with Weak Gaussian White Noises
Previous Article in Journal
Enhancing SERS Intensity by Coupling PSPR and LSPR in a Crater Structure with Ag Nanowires
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Large-Deformation Gradient Damage Model for Single Crystals Based on Microdamage Theory
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 11
Issue 24
10.3390/app112411856
Review Report
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Comparison of Different Folding Models in Variations of the Map Folding Problem

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(24), 11856; https://doi.org/10.3390/app112411856
by Yiyang Jia 1,* and Jun Mitani 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(24), 11856; https://doi.org/10.3390/app112411856
Submission received: 17 November 2021 / Revised: 8 December 2021 / Accepted: 9 December 2021 / Published: 13 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Latest Trends in Physics and Engineering Mathematics: Theory and Application)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for allowing me to read this interesting and valuable study. It was my pleasure to give the authors several suggestions to help them improve the manuscript further. The paper discusses that comparing the performance of three different folding models when they are applied to three different map folding settings.

 I found this article interesting and indeed highlighting a knowledge gap of importance. However, I have several remarks before the paper can published as is in Applied sciences Journal

It would be good to first correct the formal error and then look at the paper. Moreover, there is no discussion part in the manuscript and Moreover, conclusion part is too short.

Author Response

Sincerely thank you for your advice. Please see the attachment to see our revision.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

  1. The abstract should be extended and some main results should be discussed.
  2. The novelty of the paper is not clear. How this study is different from the existing studies. A detailed should be added at the end of the introduction.
  3. The references are not well cited. The references should be uniform.
  4. The performance should be compared with the existing ones using the simulation studies.
  5. The performance should be compared with the existing ones using the real example.
  6. The limitations and applications of the proposed study should be discussed. 
  7. The reference list should be updated by adding the latest references.
  8. Neutrosophic statistics is the extension of classical statistics and is applied when the data is coming from a complex process or from an uncertain environment. The current study can be extended using neutrosophic statistics as future research. The statement that the proposed study can be extended for neutrosophic statistics can be added by citing some papers on neutrosophic statistics. 

Author Response

Sincerely thank you for your precious advice. Please see the attachment to see our revisions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 

After the first revision round, the revised article has improved. The paper is interesting and worthy of publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper can be accepted now

Back to TopTop