Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

see file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachement for our reply to the review report.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Please consider the suggested comments to improve the quality of the current version of the manuscript:

1. The abstract needs to be incorporated with the gist of the complete work. The abstract of a scientific paper should precisely mention the specific scientific question that is answered, and the scientific conclusions made based on the results. Please explain and provide the specifications of the scientific questions answered in the proposed study. 

2. In the abstract, please include the details of the limitations of the previous research studies/methods made in the proposed domain of study. Also, please specify the scientific advancements made in the current/proposed study to overcome those limitations.

3. In the introduction, please include additional details of the advanced studies performed by peers on the ‘wavelet schemes’, to guide the reader to understand the importance of the study performed. Also, include corresponding references in the text when mentioning the details. Please include https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2020.100664; https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnsns-2019-0076.

4. Please use correct format for Eq. 6.

5. How the points are collocated over a finite domain?

6.     In the manuscript, there are several grammatical errors. Please fix it.

7.     What is the limitation of the current study?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachement for our reply to the review report.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf