大家好~第一次投稿，编辑给的意见是建议修改后重投，两个接收，还有一个拒绝（意见很尖锐），大家可以帮忙分析下要不要换reviewers（第二个审稿人有点一股脑否定的意思..）

下面是三位审稿人的意见：

Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: Accept (minor edits)

Comments:
What additional benefits would this research bring to the readers of this journal?
What different this research from the previously published papers on the topic?

Additional Questions:
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Yes. Because Code comments contain valuable information to support software development, especially during code reading and code maintenance. It is very important to classifying code comments for provide better data for program understanding. But please explain what additional benefits would this research bring to the readers of this journal?
What different this research from the previously published papers on the topic?

Is the paper technically sound?: Yes. Very technically...

Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Yes

Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Most of reference from proceeding/conference. Maybe can include from journal of index.
The reader suggests that the authors could collect more publications to enhance all these
code comments.


Reviewer: 2

Recommendation: Reject (do not encourage resubmit)

Comments:
It is a novel apporach for understanding the comments from program, however, from the paper, I did not find the most impacted contributions to techniques. While authors of this paper did not clearly defined how this code-comments to texts or sentence classifications. That's what we expect to see how AI or methods understanding and assessments.

Additional Questions:
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Somehow or No

Is the paper technically sound?: Somehow or No

Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Maybe

Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Yes


Reviewer: 3

Recommendation: Accept (minor edits)

Comments:
It is a  well-presented paper on an important topic about automatic code-comment assesment.

Additional Questions:
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Yes, paper has a contribution to the body of knowledge, it  presents a framework for assessment of code comments using Multi Layer Perceptrons. Beside, it also provides a manually annotated dataset for automatic code-comment assessment approaches.  Thus, it deserves to ve published.

Is the paper technically sound?: The paper is well-wrtiten and well-presented. The methodology and experimentation section gives the appropriate technical details about the methodolodgy proposed.

Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: The depth of the detail in both data preperation and Dcomment framework they proposed were satisfactory. Besides, it also includes comprehensible literature review on topic.

Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: All major works has been cited. The level of references provided in the paper is satisfactory.

又看了一遍第二个审稿人的意见，我好气哦，感觉不像自己这个领域的...不知道怎么说服他 返回小木虫查看更多