Human Activity Detection Using Smart Wearable Sensing Devices with Feed Forward Neural Networks and PSO
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I suggest major revisions for this paper. Here are my comments:
1- Strong grammar correction is needed.
2- The introduction and literature review sections should be combined into one section as the introduction. The introduction should be maximum 2 pages and the authors have considered 4.5 pages for the introduction. So please reduce and summarize it.
3- The authors should shrink the figures because they are very big. They should write the written things of the figures with bigger fonts then.
4- They should also shrink table 2 in the horizontal direction.
Author Response
Respected Reviewer of Applied Sciences...
I would like to extend our sincere thanks and appreciation for your great efforts in evaluating a manuscript entitled "Human Activity Detection Using Smart Wearable Sensing Devices with Feed Forward Neural Networks and PSO" which we submitted to Applied Sciences.
I have uploaded my response file with great respect
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
There are few comparisons of methods and results with related studies.
Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether this result can be achieved only with the method proposed in this paper. The authors should clarify this point.
The summary of the results is poorly done. Rather than simply listing the graphs, the accuracy of each method should be summarized in the same graph to facilitate comparison.
Author Response
Respected Editor of Applied Sciences,
We would like to extend our sincere thanks and appreciation for your great efforts in evaluating our manuscript entitled Human Activity Detection Using Smart Wearable Sensing Devices with Feed Forward Neural Networks and PSO" which we submitted to Applied Sciences.
I have uploaded my response file with great respect.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is not ready for publication. Much more effort is needed to make the manuscript presentable. The items below need careful consideration in revising the manuscript:
1- In methodology part, it is required to clearly explain about the methods of analyzing data.
2- The novelty of this paper is not convincing, while there are several publications regarding the same field.
3- The methodology section needs more explanation and support by references on the subject. This is the key section of the research that dictates the step that follow but it is not supported as it should be by relevant references and justify the reason for following this research direction. It is important for the reader to understand the method employed and the reasons that lead to that decision.
4- Regarding discussion section, the findings of this research must be critically analyzed based on the previous publications.
5- it is difficult to discern the actual problem which has given rise to this research. This could be implied in the abstract.
6- The motivation for the current research needs to be clarified further. Research questions to be properly formed and discussed in the discussion/conclusion section. The difference between epistemological and ontological concerns to be verified and discussed.
7- The paper needs thorough editing and careful proofreading. Some typos and grammatical errors are observed throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
Respected Reviewer of Applied Sciences,
We would like to extend our sincere thanks and appreciation for your great efforts in evaluating our manuscript entitled " Human Activity Detection Using Smart Wearable Sensing Devices with Feed Forward Neural Networks and PSO" which we submitted to Applied Sciences.
I have uploaded my response file with great respect.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept
Author Response
Respected Reviewer of Applied Sciences...
We would like to extend our sincere thanks and appreciation for your great efforts in evaluating our manuscript entitled " Human Activity Detection Using Smart Wearable Sensing Devices with Feed Forward Neural Networks and PSO" which we submitted to Applied Sciences.
Based on your review of our manuscript, we have implemented changes and updates based on your recommendations to improve its quality and ensure it is in its final form, meeting the high standards of your scientific journal. We hope that these amendments will obtain your satisfaction and acceptance of these amendments.
kindly accept my appreciation and thanks for your consideration of this manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
There is no definition for Human activity. The definition of activity, number of training data and test data should be shown as in Table 1 in reference [17]. Also, the number of Epochs is a parameter directly related to ACCURACY, as shown in Figure 4 in reference [17]. A similar figure should be included to show why 100 is appropriate.
Since there is no definition for Accuracy, it is difficult to determine which value it is.
As shown in Figure 6 of reference [17], the results should be presented in a confusion matrix so that the process of calculating the accuracy of human activity detection can be understood.
Figures 4 through 12 are meaningless because there are many figures with the same title and it is not clear what they show. A table would be sufficient for this result. The authors should include informative figures.
Reference [16] and Reference [15] are international conference papers, and this paper is in a journal, but it is less informative than these papers. In other words, the authors must show that this method is not specific to this data set, but is general in nature. Therefore, the authors are required to present experimental data that can be used to explain the above data set and discuss the generality of the parameter selection method.
Minor comment:
Figure quality is too low.
Font size is significantly different from the text, resulting in poor visibility.
Some of the tables are out of alignment with the text.
Only p. 13 is a landscape page.
The authors should review the format specified by the journal and make efforts to improve readability for readers.
Author Response
Respected Reviewer of Applied Sciences...
We would like to extend our sincere thanks and appreciation for your great efforts in evaluating our manuscript entitled " Human Activity Detection Using Smart Wearable Sensing Devices with Feed Forward Neural Networks and PSO" which we submitted to Applied Sciences.
Based on your review of our manuscript, we have implemented changes and updates based on your recommendations to improve its quality and ensure it is in its final form, meeting the high standards of your scientific journal. We hope that these amendments will obtain your satisfaction and acceptance of these amendments.
kindly accept my appreciation and thanks for your consideration of this manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have a good methodology and contribution. So, the manuscript, in its entirety, meets the criteria for acceptance, and it is suitable to be published in this journal for the following reasons:
1- The manuscript is up to the journal's standards.
2- The effort is clearly beneficial to the community.
3- The introduction is delivered in a clear and concise manner.
4- It is sufficient to grasp the contribution thanks to the full explanation given.
5- The steps involved in the approach are easy to follow.
6- The analysis of the results is done in a satisfactory manner.
Author Response
Respected Reviewer of Applied Sciences...
We would like to extend our sincere thanks and appreciation for your great efforts in evaluating our manuscript entitled " Human Activity Detection Using Smart Wearable Sensing Devices with Feed Forward Neural Networks and PSO" which we submitted to Applied Sciences.
Based on your review of our manuscript, we have implemented changes and updates based on your recommendations to improve its quality and ensure it is in its final form, meeting the high standards of your scientific journal. We hope that these amendments will obtain your satisfaction and acceptance of these amendments.
kindly accept my appreciation and thanks for your consideration of this manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors revised the paper properly.
