Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Enabled Internet of Things (IoT) Architecture for Music Therapy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments:
1. The topic of this paper is interesting and it will make a lot of contribution in related research field--artificial neural network (ANN) enabled internet of things (IoT) architecture for music therapy.

2. It’s necessary to use formulas/ equations and words to explain the artificial neural network (ANN).
3. The reasons for using ANN in this paper must be explained.
4. Figure 1 and Figure 2 are presented very well.
5. Before conclusions, a “Discussion” is necessary to summarize the results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thanks for your comments which helped us to improve the manuscript. 

I am attaching the point to point response to your comments in the attached file. 

Our responses have been underlined and corresponding changes in the manuscript have been highlighted in red. 

Please let me know if any further changes are required. 

Regards

Shama Siddiqui

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The presented manuscript "Artificial Neural Network (ANN) enabled Internet of Things (IoT) Architecture for Music Therapy" presents the concept of integration ANN, IoT and Android media player for treating patients.

After reading the article, I am not sure if it is a review or research article. The authors do not present the results of their own research (they only present a certain concept of the solution).

In this form, I do not recommend submitting the article to further stages of the evaluation. The manuscript must be redrafted. The goals of the research must be clearly indicated. Additionally, the editorial part of the article is incorrect. There are no references or numbering of figures and tables in the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thanks for your comments which helped us to improve the manuscript. 

I am attaching the point to point response to your comments in the attached file. 

Our responses have been underlined and corresponding changes in the manuscript have been highlighted in red. 

Please let me know if any further changes are required. 

Regards

Shama Siddiqui

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors should improve the manuscript. Just the algorithm and possible app have been explained. To be considered as a scientific paper some validated results are needed. When the app is ready, then a research can be designed and some validated results should be added to this manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thanks for your comments which helped us to improve the manuscript. 

I am attaching the point to point response to your comments in the attached file. 

Our responses have been underlined and corresponding changes in the manuscript have been highlighted in red. 

Please let me know if any further changes are required. 

Regards

Shama Siddiqui

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic of the paper is very interesting, particularly at the present time in which we are suffering a pandemic together with confinements that lead to stress and anxiety. This proposal may be very useful in these difficult times. However, in my humble opinion, the paper needs some improvements:

Authors should check format aspects and follow strictly journal template. Some issues related to format aspects:

- The format of table 1 is not very smart. I suggest to change the way of presenting such information.

- Page 10 is empty.

- Line 200: developed by N.Dhull et al, (2019) for detection of Cortisol which is a hormone used for…

The reference is not following the journal format.

Other typos:

- Line 220: ambient temperature and relative humidity) and physiologic.

The “)” parenthesis has to be removed

- Line 309: message (centre column of the flowchart depicted by Fig. 3. First,

It is missing the closing parenthesis “)”.

Other aspects

- Table 2 needs some clarifications in the way of presenting the data. Which is the “normal” value for blood pressure? 100-120/80? As the data is divided into two columns, this leads to confusion.

- The review performed in Studies on Impact of Music Therapy, particularly from section 3.1 to 3.7 is very brief and short. Each section offers one reference per section. Although Table 1 offers more detailed information, it would be interesting that the review performed in Table 1 also includes the main conclusions or findings of each study.

Moreover, please highlight how the work advances or increments the field from the present state of knowledge and provide a clear justification for your work.

- Conclusions are very scarce and it should be point out the original results of the paper and can be extended to highlight the contributions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thanks for your comments which helped us to improve the manuscript. 

I am attaching the point to point response to your comments in the attached file. 

Our responses have been underlined and corresponding changes in the manuscript have been highlighted in red. 

Please let me know if any further changes are required. 

Regards

Shama Siddiqui

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It is qualified to be published on "Electronics".

Author Response

The authors would like to Thank you for reviewing the article and providing your valuable suggestions. We have proofread the article and have also highlighted the changes suggested by other reviewers.

Best Regards

Shama Siddiqui and Co-authors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Generating test data section should be clear to the readers. Please explain in details tests and results.

Author Response

PFA the file for our responses. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

After reviewing the point to point responses of authors and the changes made in the manuscript, I accept the manuscript in present form.

Author Response

The authors would like to Thank you for reviewing the article and providing your valuable suggestions. We have proofread the article and have also highlighted the changes suggested by other reviewer.

Best Regards

Shama Siddiqui and Co-authors.