Review Reports
by
- Ling Zhao 1,
- Jun Liu 2,* and
- Anquan Zou 1
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Weiguo Fang
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The abstract uses definitive statements that are not necessarily substantiated and should be relaxed or better substantiated.
2. The practical and theoretical purpose of the article should be clearly defined.
3. The markings for research questions are identical to the markings used at the beginning of Literature Review. This is confusing.
4. There is no reliable discussion relating the research results to the current state of knowledge.
5. No date of access to internet sources.
6. The scientific value of the article could be increased by formulating appropriate research hypotheses.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
PLS find the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed all my concerns. I am satisfied with their corrections and/or clarifications.