Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript, the authors solve the fractional nonlinear equations by implementing generalized fractional differential quadrature method. The results are correct. The present study is suitable for publication after following revision. 

1.The abstract should be modified by adding advantages of the proposed methods. Thus, the Abstract should be written in a well-written structure.

2.The language should be improved in terms of typographical errors. Also, the English structure of the article, including punctuation, semicolon, and other structures, must be carefully reviewed.

 

3. The authors should give more information about this considered equation.

4. For best presentation, the authors should add paper structure at the end of introduction.

5. What are the advantages of these results compared with other results?

6.  It would be good if the following references are added to the article.

doi.org/10.1155/2021/1537958

 

doi.org/10.1155/2021/3248376

doi.org/10.3390/sym15040850

doi.org/10.3390/sym15030687 

7. Conclusion should be improved.

 

 

  

Author Response

The authors are grateful to the reviewer for his corrections that have been used to improve the quality of the manuscript. The comments below have also been used to update the manuscript and we are grateful to the editor and reviewer for their meaningful contributions. The response to each comment was typed in highlighted color  in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the authors provide the generalized fractional differential quadrature method, which is focused on the generalized Caputo kind and has been utilized for the first time for solving nonlinear fractional equations.

The manuscript is well written, but I have a few remarks:

1. Polish the abstract and write it in a precise manner with two or three important findings included over there.

2. Blocking references [14-16], [17-20], [21-24], [25-28] are a bit too big.

3. Please provide specifications on the computer used for the numerical results.

4. The third section “Method of Solution” is too brief, please describe the method in detail.

5. It is necessary to clearly highlight the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed solution compared to other methods (preferably in the form of a table).

 

The manuscript is well written. Please carefully check grammar and spelling.

Author Response

The authors are grateful to the reviewer for his corrections that have been used to improve the quality of the manuscript. The comments below have also been used to update the manuscript and we are grateful to the editor and reviewer for their meaningful contributions. The response to each comment was typed in highlighted color  in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

See attachment. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

• English needs further improvement.

Author Response

The authors are grateful to the reviewer for his corrections that have been used to improve the quality of the manuscript. The comments below have also been used to update the manuscript and we are grateful to the editor and reviewer for their meaningful contributions. The response to each comment was typed in highlighted color  in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I accept the paper in the current form.

Author Response

The authors are grateful to you to accept our correction that, of course, helped to improve the manuscript. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The author has made a comprehensive revision in accordance with my suggestions for revision and can be published in its current form.

Author Response

The authors are grateful to you to accept our correction that, of course, helped to improve the manuscript.