Exponential Synchronization in Inertial Neural Networks with Time Delays
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper by Ke and Li is scientifically sound and the mathematical derivations (as far as I could analyze them) are also very sound. The conclusions on the global exponential synchronization in neural networks is very interesting and timely. The only major change I recommend is to fix the english language throughout the manuscript. At present, the english is bad and unintelligible.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer：
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Exponential synchronization in inertial neural networks with time delays” (ID: electronics-456929). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Point 1: The paper by Ke and Li is scientifically sound and the mathematical derivations (as far as I could analyze them) are also very sound. The conclusions on the global exponential synchronization in neural networks is very interesting and timely. The only major change I recommend is to fix the english language throughout the manuscript. At present, the english is bad and unintelligible.
Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s good evaluation and kind suggestion. We have checked and corrected English grammar and spelling error thoroughly.
Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice.
Sincerely yours,
Liang KE
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
It was a pleasure to read your paper. It is dedicated to a valuable problem and describes interesting results. Nevertheless, I would like to give some remarks.
When citing please type a space between brackets and the text (e.g. on line 15 and further), Please do not place brackets like that[1] but like that [1].
Line numbering is broken so it is difficult for the reviewer to pose on mistakes and obscure fragments. Please correct it.
After line 53, we read "Proof. If the following feedback controller..." the sentence is interrupted.
"Remark 1. The Theorem 1..." probably "In the Theorem 1?"
Figures are not representative, please, consider visualizing the synchronization error in a logarithmic scale.
Please correct your English. For example, what does it mean: "In special cases, the system (1) contains mathematical models in the machine"? Or, "we need to consider the stability of the system which it has damping". These phareses make the paper poorly readable.
The theoretical background seems weak. No clear novelty is provided.
Hope, your paper will be published in another journal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer：
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Exponential synchronization in inertial neural networks with time delays” (ID: electronics-456929). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Point 1: When citing please type a space between brackets and the text (e.g. on line 15 and further), Please do not place brackets like that[1] but like that [1].
Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s kind suggestion. We have typed a space between brackets and the text throughout the paper.
Point 2: Line numbering is broken so it is difficult for the reviewer to pose on mistakes and obscure fragments. Please correct it.
Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. The line numbers are automatically generated by the latex system.
Point 3: After line 53, we read "Proof. If the following feedback controller..." the sentence is interrupted.
Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s good suggestion. We have rewritten the the sentence as “Proof. Consider the following feedback controller”.
Point 4: "Remark 1. The Theorem 1..." probably "In the Theorem 1?"
Response: Thanks for the reviewer suggestion. We have rewritten the the sentence as “Remark 1. In the Theorem 1”.
Point 5:Figures are not representative, please, consider visualizing the synchronization error in a logarithmic scale.
Response: Thanks for the reviewer suggestion. We have added the synchronization error figure ( Fig.3) and (Fig.6) in the paper.
Point 6: Please correct your English. For example, what does it mean: "In special cases, the system (1) contains mathematical models in the machine"? Or, "we need to consider the stability of the system which it has damping". These phrases make the paper poorly readable.
Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s good evaluation and kind suggestion. We have checked and corrected English grammar and spelling error thoroughly.
Thank you for the kind advice.
Sincerely yours,
Liang KE
Reviewer 3 Report
Referee’s report on the paper
Exponential synchronization in inertial neural networks with time delays
by
Liang KE and Wangli LI
The paper is focussed on the exponential synchronization for inertial neural networks with time delays. There are constructed sufficient conditions to ascertain the global exponential synchronization of the systems based on feedback control. To the end, two illustrative examples are given to illustrate the effectiveness of the obtained theoretical results.
The paper contains new results that deserves to be published.
Due to the above-given description I recommend the paper for publication after minor revision.
Comments:
- pg2 “with with”
- pls check English writing
- pg2 \mathbb{R} for real numbers is standardly used
- pg4 eq8 pre last “)” seems to be superfluous, use \left \right typing of brackets
Author Response
Dear Reviewer：
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Exponential synchronization in inertial neural networks with time delays” (ID: electronics-456929). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Point 1: - pg2 “with with”
Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s kind suggestion. We have deleted the sperfluous word “with” below line 43 of pg2.
Point 2: - pls check English writing
Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s good evaluation and kind suggestion. We have checked and corrected English grammar and spelling error thoroughly.
Point 3: - pg2 \mathbb{R} for real numbers is standardly used
Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s good suggestion. We have rewritten the equation below line 50, pg3, and use \mathbb{R} for real numbers.
Point 4: - pg4 eq8 pre last “)” seems to be superfluous, use \left \right typing of brackets
Response: Thanks for the reviewer suggestion. We have deleted the sperfluous “)” in eq8, pg4.
Thank you for the kind advice.
Sincerely yours,
Liang KE
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors!
Thank you for the beautiful job for correcting the quality of presentation.
I still have doubts about scientific soundness and meaningfulness of the paper but taking into account the great work you made for proving the main proposals of the manuscript I conclude the paper may be published. Hope, it will find an interested reader.
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.
