Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. May include significant results in the abstract. Balancing techniques are almost have equal performance.

2. The literature review and methodology are well explained.

3. The discussions on the results can be elaborated further.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Author did not address problem clearly, contribution did not clearly mention.

2. lack of literature review , consider the recently work. Existing methods limitations did not well analyzed.

3. related work did not classify .figure 1 and 2 need more detail explanation.

4.Algorithm need more detail explanation each step.

5. result need more detail explanation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper should be extensively revised to describe each method and provide the practical use case for each method.  AS written the manuscript is not clear.  It appears that the authors have all the information that can be edited but it may take some time to complete 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All comments are well addresses.

Author Response

File Attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx