Interpretable Topic Extraction and Word Embedding Learning Using Non-Negative Tensor DEDICOM
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I suggest to the authors to add the items in the abstract with the following content:
- Context and motivation: Situate and motivate your research.
- Question/problem: Formulate the specific question/problem addressed by the paper.
- Principal results: Summarize the ideas and results described in your paper. State, where appropriate, your research approach and methodology.
- Contribution: State the main contribution of your paper. What’s the value you add (to theory, to practice, or to whatever you think that the paper adds value). Also state the limitations of your results.
what are the limitations, threats to validity of research?
Section 2 can be improved, I suggest to the authors to add a theoretical basis of some concepts necessary to understand the work.
What are the main research findings?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable remarks. Please see the attached MS Word file with our replies. Also note that mentioned line numbers refer to the revised manuscript of our journal paper.
Best regards
Lars Hillebrand and David Biesner
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper proposes extensions to existent algorithms for topic extraction and word embeddings in text corpora. The paper is well written and well motivated and the proposed algorithms are sound. The topic is relevant and it can be a positive contribution to the field. I have one major comment and some minor ones: a) Major issue The evaluation is done over interesting datasets but there is no comparison with other approaches. I strongly suggest to apply the proposed approach to public datasets and to compare the obtained results with other approaches. b) Minor issues line 91 -- should be "Figure 1b" page 10 -- corpora should be better characterized: how many words? how many words per document? how many distinct words? line 233 - why restrict to the 10.000 more frequent terms? What is the total number of distinct words? What was the cut-off value? line 235 - why window of size 7? Did you evaluate with other windows size?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable remarks. Please see the attached MS Word file with our replies. Also note that mentioned line numbers refer to the revised manuscript of our journal paper.
Best regards
Lars Hillebrand and David Biesner
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I believe the authors have successfully answered my previous comments.
