A Cross-Platform Personalized Recommender System for Connecting E-Commerce and Social Network

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript matches the scope of the journal and its topic is of interest for the readers. The paper has some merits but, in my opinion, it is flawed by some viewpoints, reason why it should be improved.

In my opinion, the introduction should be further improved to better specify the motivation of the work and the characteristics of the methodology. As it is, it is not clear how it works. Additionally, the author should state clearly in which aspect this work extends the state of the art, i.e., highlight the novelty…

A literature review section is needed, where each paper should clearly specify what is the proposed methodology, novelty and results with experimentation. At the end of related works, highlight better in some lines what overall technical gaps are observed in existing works that led to the design of the proposed approach. To better delineate the context and the different possible solutions, you can consider the following paper as references: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417421012598.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

A cross-platform recommender system was proposed.  The proposed method  provides commodity recommendations by constructing user profiles and commodity profiles and performing similarity analysis. The social network effects of E-businesses were experimentally studied. The paper could be improved much. Several language issues need to be fixed.  In particular Figure 8 translated to English would be useful for readers. More recent articles of similar work need to be compared and the significance of this work could be evidenced.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject of this article is current and very interesting, as it combines the social networks that are so widespread today with e-commerce.

The work is methodologically and expository correct. However, I consider that the authors should review some minor formal aspects, such as:

* A total revision of the text should be made to avoid issues such as capitalization in the middle of a sentence (e.g., line 68, line 456, etc.)

* Improper division of words between lines (e.g., lines 72-73, 204-205, 208-209, 279-280, etc.)

* Missing spaces (e.g., line 157: denotethe)

* Text that has not been completed (e.g., line 169: the. ..)

* Improper indenting (e.g., lines 252, 275, 284, etc.)

* Use of italics with letters representing numbers in the text (e.g., line 379: n, etc.)

* Use of non-neutral language (e.g., line 458: his)

* Improper use of Roman numerals to refer to sections, when the sections are in Arabic numerals (lines 119-122). 

The weakness that the authors must also necessarily correct is the justification in more bibliographic references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed all my concerns, therefore, in my opinion, the paper can be accepted in its current for