Mexican Sign Language Recognition: Dataset Creation and Performance Evaluation Using MediaPipe and Machine Learning Techniques

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors in the manuscript entitled “Mexican Sign Language Recognition: Dataset Creation and Performance Evaluation Using MediaPipe and ML Techniques” developed a MSL processing system. The manuscript is resubmitted, and the authors addressed the issues I raised for previous submission. I am satisfied with the update.

Author Response

The comments of kind reviewers are responded to in the attachment. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the revised version of the manuscript along with the authors’ responses. While I acknowledge the technological merit of the study, my primary concern regarding the original scientific contribution remains unaddressed.

The authors highlight three main aspects as their contributions:

1. The good results were obtained in their experiments.
2. The public release of the dataset they created.
3. The method’s ability to operate with data from standard mobile phone cameras instead of specialized sensors.

However, these aspects do not constitute a novel scientific contribution:

• The public availability of the dataset is commendable but should be considered a basic requirement for ensuring reproducibility rather than an innovative contribution.
• The ability to use standard cameras is an inherent feature of the MediaPipe library rather than an advancement introduced by the authors.
• The good results obtained appear to stem from the effective integration of existing tools rather than from a novel methodological approach.

Additionally, the authors state that addressing certain key concerns raised during the review process is not feasible due to time constraints and that these issues will be addressed in future work. Given this, I encourage the authors to further develop their study and submit their future work for publication once these critical aspects have been properly explored and integrated.

At this stage, I do not consider the manuscript ready for publication.

Author Response

The comments of kind reviewers are responded to in the attachment. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments have been addressed.

Author Response

The comments of kind reviewers are responded to in the attachment. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript represents a significant contribution and is well-suited for publication in a specialized journal. However, the following areas could benefit from further refinement:
1. The manuscript and reference formatting do not adhere to the required style. The authors should revise them to align with the journal's guidelines. Please keep the default page orientation of the journal format.
2. It is recommended to revise the final part of the introduction, specifically the section outlining the significant contributions of the research, to ensure that readers can clearly grasp the key aspects of the study.
3. In lines 87 and 88, the statement "One example of the gloves is the Bright Sign Glove (BrightSign Technology Limited, 2023, February 23), which costs more than USD 2,400.00 online" should be revised. It is recommended to avoid citing a fixed product value. Instead, the authors could focus on a comparative analysis and discuss the drawbacks of the existing system.
4. In Section 2, it is advisable to minimize the use of subheadings. For instance, both "2. Literature Review" and "2.2 Related Work" cover similar content. Therefore, subheadings 2.1, 2.2 and 2.2.2, 2.2.3 can be combined to streamline the section.
5. The authors should provide a clear and detailed explanation of their proposed dataset, including a description of the real-world data collection process, accompanied by appropriate figures.
6. Although the authors provide a thorough explanation of their results, there is a lack of comparison between the proposed model and existing systems. Additionally, a discussion on the limitations of the proposed dataset and model should be included.
7. The conclusion is overly detailed. It is recommended to summarize the main contributions and outline the future work more concisely.
8. The authors may consider referencing and incorporating ideas from the following article, such as https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6063779.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language should be revised to more effectively convey the research.

Author Response

The comments of kind reviewers are responded to in the attachment. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors’ efforts in addressing my concerns. However, I remain unconvinced that the manuscript makes a sufficiently strong contribution to warrant publication. That said, I recognize that the other reviewers have a different perspective on the paper’s merit. Given this, I am willing to defer to the broader scientific community to determine its impact. I wish the authors the best in their research.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful critique and the time you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your insights and suggestions have been invaluable in refining our work. We are grateful for your careful consideration and your well wishes for our research. Thank you again for your time and constructive feedback.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.  The reference citations are not in the correct format. The author should review and correct them.
2. Check Table 2 and include it as needed. There is no need to change the page orientation.
3. Check Figure 2; create a pseudocode algorithm for each step.
4. It needs more comparisons with recently published articles to verify the proposed method.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This paper need “English proof-reading.”. English language editing is necessary, but not much

Author Response

The comments of the kind reviews have been responded in the attached document. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf