Process-Oriented Stream Classification Pipeline: A Literature Review
, Janina Susanne Pohl 1, Jakob Bossek 2, Pascal Kerschke 3 and Heike Trautmann 1,4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well written and presents the research within the domain of stream classification. The references are new and relevant.
Author Response
The paper is well written and presents the research within the domain of stream classification. The references are new and relevant.
Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your feedback on our work and for giving us the opportunity to submit our manuscript. We are happy that you consider the work relvant to the journal. In line with the other reviews, we have aligned chapter 7 more closely with the pipeline presented, and have gone into the discussion of the approaches presented more deeply. For a better understanding we have also included a Figure about the different types of algorithms.
We hope the changes on the manuscript are in your sense. Thank you once gain for your feedback.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a literature review of the process-oriented stream classification pipeline. The introduction of the existing work on the issue is enough. However the description of the existing work can not just be listed and be limited to descriptions, more technical content of the existing work should be given. Also new ideas and directions by reviewing the existing work should be discussed. Moreover smooth the English writing.
Author Response
The paper presents a literature review of the process-oriented stream classification pipeline. The introduction of the existing work on the issue is enough. However the description of the existing work can not just be listed and be limited to descriptions, more technical content of the existing work should be given. Also new ideas and directions by reviewing the existing work should be discussed.
Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your feedback on our work. We appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the very helpful and insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. Consequently, we have addressed your comments and substantially revised chapter 7 on current work. We have now made greater reference to our pipeline structure and greater reference to the concepts already explained when discussing the approaches. We also went into more detail about the results, rather than just listing the work. In addition and in line with another review, we have included a further Figure, which represents the algorithm types more clearly.
Moreover smooth the English writing.
We had the work checked again for linguistic deficiencies.
Thank you once gain for your feedback.
Reviewer 3 Report
1. More pictures and tables can be used to display materials.
2. The thesis can properly integrate the content, in order to reduce the number of chapters.
Author Response
- More pictures and tables can be used to display materials.
Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your feedback on our work and for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript. In line with the other review comments, we included a new figure, which represents differnt algorithm types.
2. The thesis can properly integrate the content, in order to reduce the number of chapters.
Further, we substantially revised section 7 and aligned the findings with our main structure of the pipeline. In order not to overload the paper with subsections, we have avoided subsections and instead worked with subheadings here. We hope, that our pipeline and the resulting structure of the work helps the readers. We would like to give you the opportunity to read into individual parts of the pipeline (e.g. preprocessing).
Again, thank you very much for your feedback.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
My cncerns have been addressed.
