Reviews and Comments on Paper 3
Paper information
| Paper: Abdallah OMARI. Functional Learning & Introduction to the Electronic Brain on El-Dorra neural network tehnology |
| Current decision: (no decision) |
Summary of received reviews and comments
Reviews superseded by other reviews are shown in the grey color in the table. All times are GMT.
| date | PC member | subreviewer | score | confidence | |
| Review 1 | Mar 23 | Izabela Rejer | 3 | 3 | |
| Review 1 | Mar 23 | Izabela Rejer | 0 | 2 | |
| Review 1 | Mar 24 | Izabela Rejer | 1 | 2 | |
| Review 2 | Mar 26 | Akira Imada | 3 | 2 | |
| Review 2 | Mar 26 | Akira Imada | -3 | 2 | |
| Review 3 | Mar 30 | Athanasios Hatzigaidas | 1 | 2 | |
| Review 4 | Mar 30 | Anastasia Papastergiou | 1 | 2 |
| Review 1 (superseded by another review) | |
| PC member: | Izabela Rejer |
| Overall rating: | 3 (strong accept) |
| Confidence: | 3 (high) |
| Relevance to this conference | 4 (good) |
| Originality/Uniqueness | 3 (fair) |
| English readability | 5 (excellent) |
| Paper organization/presentation | 5 (excellent) |
| Has good survey been done? | 4 (good) |
| Review: | Very well-written paper. My only remark is about figures - fig. 2, 3 and 8 are not readable and should be enlarged. |
| PC only: | |
| Time: | Mar 23, 10:46 |
| Review 1 (superseded by another review) | |
| PC member: | Izabela Rejer |
| Overall rating: | 0 (borderline paper) |
| Confidence: | 2 (medium) |
| Relevance to this conference | 2 (poor) |
| Originality/Uniqueness | 3 (fair) |
| English readability | 2 (poor) |
| Paper organization/presentation | 3 (fair) |
| Has good survey been done? | 2 (poor) |
| Review: | 1. There are no references to other researches on this
subject 2. |
| PC only: | |
| Time: | Mar 23, 11:07 |
| Review 1 | |
| PC member: | Izabela Rejer |
| Overall rating: | 1 (weak accept) |
| Confidence: | 2 (medium) |
| Relevance to this conference | 3 (fair) |
| Originality/Uniqueness | 3 (fair) |
| English readability | 2 (poor) |
| Paper organization/presentation | 2 (poor) |
| Has good survey been done? | 2 (poor) |
| Review: | The paper is rather a tutorial than research paper (it
refers to XOR problem and there are no author's experiments in it).
However, the idea of separete learning is interesting (since it is linked
to the human brain) and should be popularized. So I would advice to
publish the paper but after strong correction of the paper
organisation. Detailed remarks: 1. There are no references to other researches of separate learning 2. I would advise to change the style and language of presentation to more scientific one. 3. The paper layout should be rearanged - there are very weak connections between succeeding parts of the paper and therefore the paper is very difficult to read. 4. I would introduce to Introduction the description of the whole paper layout - it would make the paper more readible. |
| PC only: | |
| Time: | Mar 24, 08:46 |
| Review 2 (superseded by another review) | |
| PC member: | Akira Imada |
| Overall rating: | 3 (strong accept) |
| Confidence: | 2 (medium) |
| Relevance to this conference | 4 (good) |
| Originality/Uniqueness | 3 (fair) |
| English readability | 2 (poor) |
| Paper organization/presentation | 2 (poor) |
| Has good survey been done? | 2 (poor) |
| Review: | It sounds unique when reviewer reads the description by the
author that "we can change the activate functions and we fix the weights,"
but the author actually fails to appeal how it works better than the
standard approach. However, it's not the reason for the bad score. What is very bad is, the author seems to present exactly the same topic, method, and conclusion repeatedly in the different conferences without mentioning in this submission paper. For example, in the 4th International Conference on Neural, Parallel & Scientific Computations. |
| PC only: | |
| Time: | Mar 26, 02:29 |
| Review 2 | |
| PC member: | Akira Imada |
| Overall rating: | -3 (strong reject) |
| Confidence: | 2 (medium) |
| Relevance to this conference | 4 (good) |
| Originality/Uniqueness | 3 (fair) |
| English readability | 2 (poor) |
| Paper organization/presentation | 2 (poor) |
| Has good survey been done? | 2 (poor) |
| Review: | It sounds unique when reviewer reads the description by the
author that "we can change the activate functions and we fix the weights,"
but the author actually fails to appeal how it works better than the
standard approach. However, it's not the reason for the bad score. What is very bad is, the author seems to present exactly the same topic, method, and conclusion repeatedly in the different conferences without mentioning in this submission paper. For example, in the 4th International Conference on Neural, Parallel & Scientific Computations. If the author survives the review procedure, he definitely should show, in his camera-ready version, how different this paper is from his previous reports, if any. |
| PC only: | |
| Time: | Mar 26, 02:39 |
| Review 3 | |
| PC member: | Athanasios Hatzigaidas |
| Overall rating: | 1 (weak accept) |
| Confidence: | 2 (medium) |
| Relevance to this conference | 5 (excellent) |
| Originality/Uniqueness | 4 (good) |
| English readability | 3 (fair) |
| Paper organization/presentation | 3 (fair) |
| Has good survey been done? | 4 (good) |
| Review: | The paper describes a different learning method & an
electronic brain model. More specifically, authors introduce Electronic Brain on El-dorra neural network technology. The paper is presenting a really novel and interesting technology. Technically and scientifically is a very good work. However, I believe there is still place for more extended evaluation and conclusions. Furthermore, the paper doesn�t follow the instructions for authors and English readability is rather fair. Concluding, I suggest to be accepted (with minor changes). |
| PC only: | The paper has very good technical depth and is presenting a
really novel and interesting technology. Nevertheless, it lacks
evaluation and in depth discussion. Further more it doesn�t follow the template of the conference and English readability is rather fair. Also it seems that authors have presented similar work to many other conferences. Therefore I suggest it as borderline paper. |
| Time: | Mar 30, 20:19 |
| Review 4 | |
| PC member: | Anastasia Papastergiou |
| Overall rating: | 1 (weak accept) |
| Confidence: | 2 (medium) |
| Relevance to this conference | 4 (good) |
| Originality/Uniqueness | 4 (good) |
| English readability | 3 (fair) |
| Paper organization/presentation | 2 (poor) |
| Has good survey been done? | 3 (fair) |
| Review: | Authors present a new learning method. The paper describes
Electronic Brain on El-dorra neural network technology. The paper is a very good technical document.The proposed technology is presented in a very sophisticated way. However, literature survey is rather limited. Also I would like to see more discussion concerning comparison with similar techniques. I believe that in some cases it lacks in depth discussion. English readability is fair. Furthermore, authors should follow the conference template. I suggest to accept the paper (authors could follow previous comments). |
| PC only: | Although the paper is very interesting, it lacks in depth
evaluation. Furthermore it doesn?t follow the template of the conference and English readability is rather fair. Also I believe that similar work has already been presented to other conferences. I suggest it as borderline paper. |
| Time: | Mar 30, 20:28 |