A Formal Fuzzy Concept-Based Approach for Association Rule Discovery with Optimized Time and Storage
, Maazen Alsabaan 4, Mohamed I. Ibrahem 5 and Ebtesam Shemis 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsJournal Name: mathematics
Manuscript Number: mathmatics-3271589
Title: A Formal Fuzzy Concept-based Approach for Association Rule 2 Discovery with Optimized Time and Storage
I have read with interest the paper entitled “A Formal Fuzzy Concept-based Approach for Association Rule Discovery with Optimized Time and Storage”. Authors investigate an important aspect related to formal fuzzy and association rule mining. However, following suggestions are made to improve the quality of paper.
Comments to the author
I suggest the author to list all abbreviations and their corresponding full names in a table at the beginning of the paper.
Abstract
1. The abstract should point out better what are the prime objectives of this study.
2. Authors should depict a brief explanation about the necessity of carrying out such study
3. The conclusion should be explained.
1. Introduction
The Introduction section requires a significant improvement. Authors should address the following issues and rewrite the this part.
1. Please specify in the introduction, based on the relevant literature, the research gap.
Here author must build research gap following the previous studies.-The manuscript does not answer the following concerns: Why is it timeliness to explore such a study? What makes this study different from the previously published studies? Are there any similarly findings in line with the previously published studies? Are the findings different from prior academic studies that were conducted elsewhere, if any? For example, what it requires, what are the new technologies, some recent issue highlights the importance.
2. There are no research questions clearly delineated and no discussion how author is going to address these research questions. I am sorry but it is quite hard to follow. Also, there is no discussion about how authors are going to address these research questions. This is required, because it helps the reader to understand your research better.
2. Classical and Fuzzy Formal Concept Analysis
1. Please provide a detailed explanation of the formula used to calculate the data in Table 4 and obtain the data in Table 5, line 145-154.
2. Please provide a detailed explanation of the concepts in Definition 5, such as fuzzy context, fuzzy concept, and critic intent, based on Example 1
3. How was the data in Figure 2 obtained? Please provide detailed calculation steps
3. Literature Review
What’s the difference between crisp-fuzzy FFCA and fuzzy-crisp FFCA? It would be best if the author could use a figure to show the difference between the two.
5. Results and Discussion
1. Through method comparison, it can be concluded that the method proposed by the author has high computational efficiency?
2. It is necessary for the author to provide the calculation process involved in the entire text for reproduction and verification.
6. Conclusions
It is necessary for the author to further explain the innovative points and contributions, as well as the shortcomings of the research in the conclusion.
In summary, This article needs major revisions.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the abstract, the proposed method's execution time should be written.
Line number 82,82, dataset discussed in section 0; there is no section 0 here.,
In Table 1, rename the field name # with meaningful.
The limitation should be added at the end of section 3.
The author should explain the single-sided iceberg lattice.
The authors should explain which data from which dataset was used for analysis since they used three datasets.
Suggest adding one more comparative metric.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has been revised as required and I believe it meets the requirements of this journal. It can be published publicly.
