An E-Commerce Recommendation System Based on Dynamic Analysis of Customer Behavior
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors presented An Proposed customised recommendation system based on customer behavior. but there are some issues need to answer before possible acceptance:
>> I suggest to modify the title a bit.
>> The authors need to rewrite the Problem, Abstract to be Aim, Methods, Results, and Conclusion.
>> Rewrite The introduction section to be more understood. Introduction section can be extended to add the issues in the context of the existing work and how proposed algorithms/approach can be used to overcome this.
>> Add major contributions list in the Introduction section.
>> Add the rest organization of the study in the end of the introduction section.
>> More clarifications and highlighted about the research gabs in the related works section.
>> The authors need to provide The Proposed system as figure and main steps with discreption in section 3.1. The Proposed system description.
>> Figure 1. Information and data flow among system entities to generate the recommendation list Its not clear. I suggest to redraw this figure
>> Results need more explanations. Additional analysis is required at each experiment to show the its main purpose.
>> Authors should add the parameters of the algorithms.
>> a comparison with state of art in the form of table should be added.
>> The Limitations of the proposed study need to be discussed before conclusion
Author Response
Response to Reviewers Form
Original Manuscript ID: sustainability-1354022
Original Article Title: “Proposed Customized Recommendation System Based on Customer Behavior”
To: Sustainability Journal Editor
Re: Response to reviewers
Dear Editor,
We would like to thank you for the considering our paper for possible publication at Sustainability Journal. We would like also to convey our appreciation to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback and suggestions. We have gone through all the comments and feel that they are justified, and very useful for enhancing the quality of this paper.
We have noted the comments from all the reviewers and subsequently addressed all the highlighted issues. In addition, we have endeavored to correct parts that were unclear and have added extra information as required by the reviewers. Please, find enclosed the revised draft and our specific responses to every comment. The attachment contains the revised version of the paper.
We appreciate your help and look forward to hearing from you soon.
Best regards,
Farah Tawfiq
Corresponding Author
Reviewer 1:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
First off, the paper has greatly benefitted from proofreading. In all honesty, same paragraphs have only now become intelligible.
Comment 1: I suggest to modify the title a bit.
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comments, the title has been changed to “Employ Customer Behavior to Design Improved Recommendation System to Enhance E-commerce Environment”.
Comment 2: The authors need to rewrite the Problem, Abstract to be Aim, Methods, Results, and Conclusion
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, the abstract has been modified and the modification is highlighted in lines 15-28.
Comment 3: Rewrite The introduction section to be more understood. Introduction section can be extended to add the issues in the context of the existing work and how proposed algorithms/approach can be used to overcome this
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, the introduction is modified and the modifications are highlighted, in lines 47-101 containing the challenges of the recommendation systems .
Comment 4: Add major contributions list in the Introduction section.
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, the major contributions are added as 7 points. They are found in lines 102-118.
Comment 5: Add the rest organization of the study in the end of the introduction section.
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, the paper organization is added and it found in lines 119-122.
Comment 6: More clarifications and highlighted about the research gabs in the related works section.
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, research gabs in the related works are added and highlighted in lines 134-137, 145-150, 151-158, 176-177, 183-184. The proposed system solution for these gabs are in lines 185-194.
Comment 7: The authors need to provide The Proposed system as figure and main steps with description in section 3.1. The Proposed system description.
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment , the system description main steps and figures are added in section 3.1 and highlighted in lines 198-228, 261-266 Also Personalized recommendation algorithm and figure 1 are moved to this section.
Comment 8: Figure 1. Information and data flow among system entities to generate the recommendation list Its not clear. I suggest to redraw this figure
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment , figure 2 and 3 provide more details and description for system data flow and are added to section 3.1 in lines, 261-266 and lines 273-289.
Comment 9: Results need more explanations. Additional analysis is required at each experiment to show the its main purpose.
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, additional analysis are added to tables 9,10, 11 . They can be shown in rows 6-9 in each table of them and highlighted. Also lines 469-474 discuss the figures 4,5,6 lines 491-493, 498-500, 506-507, section 4.3 contains experiment of recommendation list for two samples of the customers and the results explained in lines 510-529 including tables 12,13.
Comment 10: Authors should add the parameters of the algorithms.
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, the parameters are added in section 3.1 in lines 214-226-208 also described in the algorithm Personalized recommendation algorithm in page 7.
Comment 11: a comparison with state of art in the form of table should be added.
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, a new section 4.4 comparison analysis is added to compare between the proposed system and the related works depending on the RS challenges as shown in table 14 , lines 533-514.
Comment 12: The Limitations of the proposed study need to be discussed before conclusion
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, the limitations are added in section 5. Discussion and highlighted in lines 542-560.
The attachment contain the paper after revisions
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, please find attached a review in .pdf format.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewers Form
Original Manuscript ID: sustainability-1354022
Original Article Title: “Proposed Customized Recommendation System Based on Customer Behavior”
To: Sustainability Journal Editor
Re: Response to reviewers
Dear Editor,
We would like to thank you for the considering our paper for possible publication at Sustainability Journal. We would like also to convey our appreciation to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback and suggestions. We have gone through all the comments and feel that they are justified, and very useful for enhancing the quality of this paper.
We have noted the comments from all the reviewers and subsequently addressed all the highlighted issues. In addition, we have endeavored to correct parts that were unclear and have added extra information as required by the reviewers. Please, find enclosed the revised draft and our specific responses to every comment.
We appreciate your help and look forward to hearing from you soon.
Best regards,
Farah Tawfiq
Corresponding Author
Reviewer 1:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
First off, the paper has greatly benefitted from proofreading. In all honesty, same paragraphs have only now become intelligible.
Major revisions
Comment 1: Authors should revise the Abstract. It is not advisable to present such extended abstracts as they lose their importance at the summary level. In the specific case of the authors' abstracts, it is
recommended that paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 be combined into one.
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comments, the abstract is reconstructed as highlighted in lines 15-28
Comment 2: It is essential that the authors, in the introduction, incorporate references to the science of neuromarketing since this is the philosophy from which recommender systems are born. In this way, the authors will be able to reinforce their argument concerning phrases such as "Such systems usually present the user with a list of suggested products they could like, as well as an estimate of how much they might like each item".
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, a paragraph is added regarding this subject as highlighted in lines 86-101, p3 and the corresponding references added from 54-60.
Comment 3: The authors make blunt assertions without refuting or reasoning them out. Worrying are:
o "To evaluate performance, good predictions are insufficient." Reasoning and incorporation of
bibliography are requested.
o "This is done by depending on user behaviour that reflects real trends for each client". What are the authors basing this on?
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, these conclusions are made depending on the experiments performed . additional experiments are added in section 4.3. and discussed also the results are shown in tables 12,13 as highlighted. For tables 9,10,11 additional 4 experiments added in rows 6,7,8,9 as highlighted in the same tables and the results discussed in lines 468-473, 490-492, 497-499, 505-506. Also comparison analysis is added in section 4.5. to show the differences among the related works and the proposed system.
Comment 4: The conclusions are not just a summary of the previous work but a contribution to it. It is essential that the authors propose more robust and developed conclusions. It is proposed that they do so by critiquing tunnel vision after its effect on consumer purchase based on what has been previously
studied and introduced concerning neuromarketing.
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, the conclusion is rewritten as highlighted in section 6, lines 559-569-557.
Comment 5: It is essential that the authors include a "Discussion" section in which they can incorporate criticisms of their current work and differentiate it from the related work they have previously included (few
related works are considered to have been introduced)..
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, a discussion is added in section 5 and highlighted in lines 538-557.
Minor revision
Comment 6: In citation [1], it is correct to place the citation before the comma.
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, it is corrected
Comment 7: In quotations such as [4,5,6], separate it from the previous word.
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, it is corrected.
Comment 8: If acronyms such as "EC" or "RS" are introduced, indicate them before the word they are to replace.
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, it is corrected.
Comment 9: Mojtaba Salehi 2013 [55] and similar ones are misquoted.
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, it is corrected. And after renumbering its sequence is 62 in references, highlighted.
Comment 10: Line 179 Be careful with spaces.
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, it is corrected.
Comment 11: In tables such as Table 1, the source is missing; is it self-made?
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, yes it is self-made.
Comment 12: In Figure 1, the title of the figure should appear above and the source below.
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, figure 1 is self-made.
Comment 13 : Figure 2 is not a figure; it is a graph. It is requested to modify the following ones as they are graphs as well.
Authors Response:
Thanks a lot for your valuable comment, they are corrected and after adding two figures they are renumbered to 4,5,6.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors end up presenting a consolidated work after the revisions that have been made and their incorporation.
It is essential to highlight that the incorporation of the revisions satisfies the reviewer's comments, and it is for this reason, acceptance is recommended.
