Asymmetric Bipartite Consensus of Multi-Agent Systems under Periodic Detection Event-Triggered Mechanism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 This is a nice article.   

My Comments:

1 The article needs to be revised with more experimentation by comparing relevant approaches and algorithms.

2. A more recent article should be considered for providing the proposed approach effectiveness.

3- An introduction should clearly highlight the motivation, problem statement, the objective of the paper, gap in the existing research and the novelty of the conducted research.

4- -I suggest extending the conclusions section to focus on the results you get, the method you propose, and their significance.

5- Expand  future directions in Conclusion as:

This study may extended based on the following publications: 

  [a] Hybrid Soft Computing Models Applied to Graph Theory, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-16020-3, 380(2020), Springer [b] m-Polar Fuzzy Graphs, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Springer, 371(2019).  [c] Graphs for the Analysis of Bipolar Fuzzy Information, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Springer, DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-8756-6, 401(2021).    

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The presented paper is good prepared. However, I have some recommendations.

The topic is very interesting and the results are also relevant. I have a feeling, however, that the paper is harder to read.

The abstract is very short and does not fully describe the content of the paper itself.

The introduction is well done, but I feel that the references are poorly represented by authors and publications from around the world and from different journals.

I do not find the classic structure of a paper: aim of the paper, methods, results and discussion, and conclusions.

Lack of a clear defined objective of the paper in the abstract.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

please avoid such general phrases as "in recent years"

The methods are discussed without providing motivation and background information. 

section ė should be titled results or similarly

line 444 repeats the same part of formula twice

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This is  a nice version. But the should address remaining two points too:

( 1)  The article needs to be revised with more experimentation by comparing relevant approaches and algorithms.

(2)    This study may extended based on the following publications. Please cite these related references: 

  [a] Hybrid Soft Computing Models Applied to Graph Theory, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-16020-3, 380(2020), Springer

[b] m-Polar Fuzzy Graphs, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Springer, 371(2019). 

[c] Graphs for the Analysis of Bipolar Fuzzy Information, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Springer, DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-8756-6, 401(2021).

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I can currently be satisfied with post edits. The authors have clarified the problem formulation, improved the abstract, introduction, results. Also the structure is changed.

Author Response

We deeply appreciate the valuable comments, suggestions and encouragement to our work.

Reviewer 3 Report

thank you

Author Response

We deeply appreciate the valuable comments, suggestions and encouragement to our work.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.