Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
Search
by
  • Jaemoon Lee 1,*,
  • Qian Gong 2 and
  • Anand Rangarajan 1
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Muhammad Abbas Reviewer 2: Agnieszka Sękala

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are following some suggestions/comments

 

1.      There are many grammatical, typographical errors and inconsistent mathematical expressions in the paper (text and mathematical expressions are not matched). They can be easily seen from the text. Read carefully.

2.      What is your main contribution? The contribution of the current work should be emphasized in the introduction. Mention the contribution in terms of continuities, curvature properties etc. Give reasons in details.

3.      What kind of reason sent you to study this topic?

4.      What are the limitations and benefits of your work?

5.      Add CPU time for computations for some computational values.

6.      The abstract, conclusion and introduction need to be re-written/revised properly, in terms of the suggestions/professional way (avoid using we, our, etc…).

7.      All figures are needed in more attractive way.

8.      Some abbreviations are not clear.

9.      The abstract is very long try to reduce and comprehensive.

 

The article is needed to organize properly. The viewpoint in this article and the results have a bit on merit and are of little interest, thus may it reasonable to consider the publication of this paper in “Applied Sciences”

 

I recommend this paper for publication subject to the above major changes aimed at improving the quality of the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The problem under consideration in this paper is well-motivated and important in data compression algorithms. The paper is relevant to the scope of the journal. In general, the paper is very interesting. However, there is no good literature review in the article. I suggest a deeper literature analysis -  reworking this part and extending it. Also, the last paragraph “Conclusions” must be extended and refers to the main findings of the paper. Figures 6 and 7 are after the "Conclusions" paragraph. In my opinion, the Authors should put these figures in the subparagraph "4.4. Results".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have revised the manuscript successfully so I recommend for publication.