Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1- Introduction provides a nice overview of the problem and the existing solutions. However I suggest the following to improve it:

a- Please reconsider the formation of paragraphs 2 and 3 and break them into more paragraphs each containing one idea. Next idea, next paragraph. Currently it's hard to catch points by eye. Make sure to include a short paragraph that only describes the main contributions of your paper.

b- It would be nice to know the structure of your paper in an additional paragraph at the end of the introduction.

2- Check and fix the following on page 4: "Error! Reference source not found."

3- The explanations after all the formulas still relates to the previous paragraph, so don't indent the first line after the formulas for eye convenient (unless it is really a new paragraph of course, but I doubt in most of the cases). This has also made the text hard to follow.

4- Why do figures 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 have such poor quality? Consider using vector formats like .eps when you are generating them. I can't really read them.

5- Conclusion, paragraph1, last line: "the original ..."? I think "signal" is missing.

6- I see all the following in the paper: "module maximum; module maxima; modular maxima; modulus maximum; modulo maximum; modulo-maximum." I found six versions of the same thing. Please be consistent throughout the manuscript.

 

Nice work is done. Thank you and good luck.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have reviewed all items requested by this reviewer. Therefore, I suggest that the publication be carried out by Applied Sciences.