Dynamic Pathway Selection Mechanisms of Brain Networks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The following revisions are required.
- In literature review, add 3 to five more relevant and latest techniques.
- Add Comparison table at the end of section 2 and compare with at least 10 to 15 techniques with appropriate parameters.
- Please make sure your paper has necessary language proof-reading.
- What is the possible limitations of the proposal in this paper if any? More detailed discussions are necessary to be added.
- The Conclusion section should be compressed further to summarize the whole paper and make it concise enough.
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Here are my comments
with dynamic--->with a dynamic
as shown in equation---> as shown in Equation
parametera, bis a--->parameter a, b is a
this paper therefore ---> this paper, therefore,
Δφdenotes---> Δφ denotes
pair P i,jand-->pair P i,j and
PPSis used-->PPS is used
PAof--->PA of
nodesn i-->nodes n i
PAvalue--->PA value
PPSis given-->PPS is given
PAvalues--->PA values
Through statistical analysis,--->Through the statistical analysis,
PPSeffect--->PPS effect
PAh--->PA h
PCbetween--->PC between
In the results the authors repeat the sentence of "this paper" ten (10) times.
In the conclusion the authors repeat the sentence of "this paper" four (4) times.
The authors use undefined acronyms throughout the text; FMRI, FHN, ECM, ...
In my view, the abstract, text, and especially the conclusion need to be improved for a good understanding of future readers of this work because the ideas, objectives and conclusion are poorly formulated. It can also be seen that the authors wrote this work quickly, which show many writing errors like PPSeffect, PAvalues, ...
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. In Section 1, please place paragraphs that: a) enumerates your contributions and their descriptions and b) details the outline of the paper. the problem statement is also not that clear when compared to the previous work. There is not much information given.
2. In Section 2.1, what does FHN mean? please check all your acronym definitions, e.g., ECM?
3. parameter a and b is ==> parameter a and b ARE. Please check all subject-verb agreement problems.
4. In equation (1), what is the unit of tau? What are the ranges of a and b? Also, if Iext is measured in A, Vi is also measured in A? Please check equation in terms of its units.
5. In Section 2.2, variable i is not italicized. Please check all occurrences.
6. In equation (4), how are the constants acquired? Place a short description.
7. In equation (3) alpha(Vj) is misunderstood as alpha as a function of Vj. This is wrong, right? If so, simply remove the parentheses. Check also equation (2).
8. In equation (5), what is int?
9. Is C(t) in (6) different from the C in equation (5)? Your variables are confusing.
10. Where is CL and CH used?
11. In equation (7), C(t) is used twice. Is this a recursive equation?
12. Section 2 is very confusing to read. Too many equations and I don't get their practical usage in their application. I suggest they place a discussion on their qualitative or quantitative application.
13. In equation (10), there is neuron k. Is this different from neuron i? Again, too many variables now and becomes confusing. Also, x(t) is based on this but it is not shown in the equation.
14. Figures 1a and 1b are hard to read in normal view when compared to Figure 1c. Please do for all similar figures.
15. In Figure 2c, it is said it is under the influence of time delay. Place the original signal so that the readers can see the effect of time delay.
16. Is there a figure that compares your work to a benchmark? How was the improvement made? Please clarify this.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have answered all my queries. Thank you very much.
