Validating Syntactic Correctness Using Unsupervised Clustering Algorithms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

You improved your manuscript.

I think it is close to the state of being published.

Thank you for your contribution.

Sincerely,

 

Author Response

Answer)

We appreciate you for your valuable comments on this article. Your comments really helped us improve our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article offers a model of a system for checking the grammar and syntactic correctness of the texts in technological requirements, specifications.

Templates for standard technical Korean language and Unsupervised Clustering Algorithms are used to find the group of templates to which an entered sentence can be assigned. The system has been tested for the development of an open platform for a railway train.

The Related Work point in the article should be expanded. Other text clustering studies should be found and it should be indicated if there are other approaches to selecting the number of clusters. A brief overview of the clustering algorithms must be given and the choice of k-means Clustering Algorithm has to be justified.

Author Response

Answer) Done. Lines 82-125.

We have updated the related work. In the related work, we have explained why the cluster validation technique, which is a popular approach to selecting the number of clusters, is not feasible in our domain. Also, we have added a brief overview of the clustering algorithms, which are EM, DBSCAN, and k-means algorithm, and justified why the k-means clustering algorithm should be utilized to recommend a template that is similar to an inputted sentence.

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.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The comments of the reviewer have been answered.

2. The English language should be carefully checked. For example, line 41: "a set of experiments is" -> "a set of experiments are"; line 49, "an Euclidean distance" -> "a Euclidean distance"

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

 

I enjoyed reading your paper.

Still, there are some issues to deal with.

For instance:

• English language and style issues - Grammarly (https://app.grammarly.com) on default settings detected only for the text block resulting from the concatenation of Title+Abstract+Keywords+Conclusion and Future Research

8 critical alerts (correctness issues) and 27 more advanced ones, namely:
Word choice (7), Wordy sentences (5), Unclear sentences (5), Punctuation in compound/complex sentences (3), Passive voice misuse (3), and more (4). This meant a total score of 80 out of a maximum of 100 for this sample above. This is fine, of course, but there is room for more. Since You do not appear to be native English speakers, I suggest a total revision of the English language and style for the entire article using Grammarly or another specialized tool;

• The paper must follow the specific structure of the journal, namely:
  Author Information, Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions, etc., as indicated at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics/instructions  

• You must ensure that all figures have the required resolution (minimum 1000 pixels width/height, or a resolution of 300 dpi or higher according to the Journal’s instructions: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics/instructions ); Figure 3,  for instance, clearly suffers from a so-called “low-resolution syndrome”;

• I think more contributions in journal papers must be cited in this research both in the Introduction and the section dedicated to the interpretation of the results. I also think that just 26 references (not all of them in journal papers) are not enough;

• All digital object identifier (DOI) codes for all journal references must be explicitly specified;

• There are many figures (8) in the paper. Some of them (not essential for understanding the main content) should be moved to the Appendix section. If not existing, this section must be created;

• It seems that you provided more than a single conclusion in this paper. Therefore, the singular form (Conclusion and…  instead of Conclusions and …) is not justified;

• The results obtained by You are hardly replicable in spite of all the technical details generously provided because You do not provide full access to the data You used. Therefore, You should include a note regarding the possibility that the reader can access the data at request. If the data is real data, more details about the ethics agreement must be explicitly specified in such studies applied to humans.

 

Thank you for your contribution and for trying to make the world a better place for living!

 

Sincerely,