All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Authors,
I am happy to accept the article based on the feedback received from the reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Keith Crandall, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
In this article, the authors have provided a comprehensive survey of dental image segmentation and analysis by investigating more than 130 research works conducted through various dental imaging modalities, such as various modes of X-ray, CT(Computed Tomography), CBCT (Cone Beam Computed Tomography), etc.
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
The authors have addressed all the comments. The manuscript can be accepted for publication.
The authors have addressed my suggestions. I would like to accept this paper.
The authors have addressed my suggestions. I would like to accept this paper.
The authors have addressed my suggestions. I would like to accept this paper.
Everything looks good. Authors did a good job to modify the manuscript based on reviewer comments.
NA
NA
Good job.
Dear Dr. Kumar,
Thank you for your submission to PeerJ Computer Science.
It is my opinion as the Academic Editor for your article - Descriptive analysis of dental X-ray images using various practical methods: A review - that it requires a number of Major Revisions.
My suggested changes and reviewer comments are shown below and on your article 'Overview' screen.
Please address these changes and resubmit.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The authors presented a comprehensive survey on dental x-ray imaging.
Can be improved.
Not applicable.
1. Is it the first of it kind survey on dental x-ray imaging? If not compare the current survey with existing surveys and highlight how it is different or enhances the existing surveys.
2. Some of the recent works on application of DN/CNN on several domains such as the following can be discussed when discussing about ML algorithms. "Deep learning and medical image processing for coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: A survey, A novel PCA–whale optimization-based deep neural network model for classification of tomato plant diseases using GPU, Hand gesture classification using a novel CNN-crow search algorithm".
3. A good survey should present a detailed section on challenges faced by the existing methodologies and also give directions to the researchers who want to carry out the research in that domain. I suggest that the authors can add a section, "challenges and future directions".
4. A good survey paper should have eye catching images. Check this paper for reference "Deep learning and medical image processing for coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: A survey"
Paper is well organized.
Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
Please check grammar to submit final paper.
no comment
A review method was chosen as research design
Appropriate
The authors have chosen a very important topic. The paper Is very interesting and timely. I suggest the authors incorporate these changes to further improve the quality of the paper.
1. There are many Typos and grammatical errors throughout the manuscript.
2. Figures clarity should be thoroughly enhanced.
3. The introduction lacks many important references in the field.
4. I wish to reorganize your paper with better and more clarity by Rectifying the above comments and submit the revised version.
5. Introduction and related work is not synchronized.
6. The conclusion and future work part can be extended to have a better understanding of the approach and issues related to that which can be taken into consideration for future work.
Please cite the following relevant literature but not limited to:
1) Rehman, Z. U., Zia, M. S., Bojja, G. R., Yaqub, M., Jinchao, F., & Arshid, K. (2020). Texture based localization of a brain tumor from MR-images by using a machine learning approach. Medical hypotheses, 141, 109705.
2) Bhattacharya, S., Maddikunta, P. K. R., Pham, Q. V., Gadekallu, T. R., Chowdhary, C. L., Alazab, M., & Piran, M. J. (2021). Deep learning and medical image processing for coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: A survey. Sustainable cities and society, 65, 102589.
3) Sai Ambati, L., Narukonda, K., Bojja, G. R., & Bishop, D. (2020). Factors Influencing the Adoption of Artificial Intelligence in Organizations-From an Employee's Perspective.
4) Shabaan, M., Arshad, K., Yaqub, M., Jinchao, F., Zia, M. S., Boja, G. R., ... & Munir, R. (2020). Survey: smartphone-based assessment of cardiovascular diseases using ECG and PPG analysis. BMC medical informatics and decision making, 20(1), 1-16.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.