Use of a Software Application to Generate a Sequence for Simulation Model Creation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for sending your paper to the journal Applied Sciences. Your paper is interesting and within the scope of the journal.

I want to propose you some improvements to the current version of your paper:

1.       The title is very long and fails to be interesting. Please revised the title.

2.       Try to avoid so-called chain citations in your work. Every reference deserves at least two sentences. For example: [3], [4]

3.       In the Introduction please clearly state the research gap that you solve.

4.       You do not have a chapter Literature review (LR). Some LR issues you have mentioned in the chapter Introduction. Need to be clarified.

5.       In subchapter 2.1 add a table with the advantages and disadvantages of all three approaches. Then comment on the result.

6.       Figure 2 is not sending a clear message. Make it informative.

7.       There is no methodology. Before the Results and Discussion, you need to explain your methodology. Also, add a block diagram. It must be clear how the scholar can reuse your approach.

8.       Please explain all symbols that you have used in Figure 4 (for example Z).

9.       Add an appendix with all codes. In the text, this is hard to read it.

10.   Figure 8 is not sending a clear message. Make it informative.

11.   Figure 9 see my comments 9.

12.   The Conclusion is very generic. First explain the problem, your methodology, your results, what are conclusions ad future research steps.

 

Regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents the idea of additional programming elements in simulation tools to support an enhanced simulation complexity. The identified challenge of programming languages being hard to understand is solved by code generators based on "simple" GUI input - which is not novel. The example shown is domain specific, so are the shown GUIs. Thus, it is unclear how the approach should work "in general". With a programming language you always have to full set of possibilities, with an "abstract" GUI the complexity is handled by hiding some of the degrees of freedom, the very old graphics programming approach.

The presented example might work in a limited domain. But your generalization (see Line 345) would have to be proven or at least argued scientifically.

Please imporve the argumentation for the investment (development and maintenance) into GUI elements for non-programmers and the return on investmemnt based on the simulation used / executed. When would it pay to develop your simple GUI programming elements?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the new version of your paper. I am satisfied with this version to be published.

Regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

The review comments have been addressed.