Scribd
Upload
6 views

Conference Management Toolkit - View Review

Uploaded by

Vinayak Sivaprasad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
6 views

Conference Management Toolkit - View Review

Uploaded by

Vinayak Sivaprasad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

View Reviews

Paper ID
216
Paper Title
SWMDS Model: A Smart Solution for Optimized Water Management

Reviewer #1

Questions

1. Does the title is in accordance with the content of the article?


Yes
2. Whether the abstract clearly reflects the purpose and scope of the paper? If not,
what improvements are suggested?
It needs to be more structured, clearly stating the objectives, methods, and key findings
of the study. The abstract should also include numerical results or concrete data that
demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed system.
3. Does the keywords mentioned are relevant to the content?
Yes
4. Does the introduction widely covers all the fundamental requirements to understand
the paper? Is there a proper usage of block diagrams?
It lacks a well-defined structure to clearly present the problem statement and the
contributions of the paper. Moreover, the introduction should emphasize the specific
gaps this research aims to fill.
5. Does the paper contain related work where similar works have been compared?
The related work section provides a decent overview of the existing literature, but it fails
to critically compare the proposed system with existing technologies. The paper could
benefit from a more detailed comparison highlighting the advantages and limitations of
previous systems and explaining how SWMDS stands out.
6. Are the methods and analysis described with sufficient details? (Write critical
comments)
The methods section provides some details on the system design and architecture. But
the appropriate method is not clearly distinguished. There is no novel aspects
presented.
7. Result analysis, conclusion and Overall evaluation (Write critical comments)
The results section is severely lacking as there are no numerical or empirical results
presented. The comparison table is qualitative, and no performance metrics are
provided to back up claims about the system's improvements over existing
technologies. The paper needs to include real-world tests, simulations, or case studies
that demonstrate the effectiveness of SWMDS.
8. Clarity in terms of Diagrams and Tables in Paper
No
9. Proper language usage in Paper
Yes
10. Proper Handling of Captions and References in Paper
Yes
11. SDG: To which Sustainable Development Goal does the contribution align?
Clean water and sanitation (SDG 6)
12. Strengths of the paper
Cloud application
13. Limitations of the paper
The lack of quantitative results or real-world testing significantly weakens the paper.
Without empirical validation, the claims about the system's advantages are
unsubstantiated.
14. Overall Recommendation
Rejected

Reviewer #2

Questions

1. Does the title is in accordance with the content of the article?


Yes
2. Whether the abstract clearly reflects the purpose and scope of the paper? If not,
what improvements are suggested?
good
3. Does the keywords mentioned are relevant to the content?
No
4. Does the introduction widely covers all the fundamental requirements to understand
the paper? Is there a proper usage of block diagrams?
Make with clear block diagram and include algorithm for the corresponding parts
5. Does the paper contain related work where similar works have been compared?
yes
6. Are the methods and analysis described with sufficient details? (Write critical
comments)
need to be added proper algorithms
7. Result analysis, conclusion and Overall evaluation (Write critical comments)
add percentagewise of comparison
8. Clarity in terms of Diagrams and Tables in Paper
Yes
9. Proper language usage in Paper
Yes
10. Proper Handling of Captions and References in Paper
Yes
11. SDG: To which Sustainable Development Goal does the contribution align?
Clean water and sanitation (SDG 6)
12. Strengths of the paper
good writeup
13. Limitations of the paper
no
14. Overall Recommendation
Accepted with Minor Revision

Reviewer #3

Questions

1. Does the title is in accordance with the content of the article?


Yes
2. Whether the abstract clearly reflects the purpose and scope of the paper? If not,
what improvements are suggested?
need to incorporate technology related to SDG goals
3. Does the keywords mentioned are relevant to the content?
Yes
4. Does the introduction widely covers all the fundamental requirements to understand
the paper? Is there a proper usage of block diagrams?
yes but only limited content available
5. Does the paper contain related work where similar works have been compared?
Comparison Between Existing and Proposed System in table 1 define the theory
part,have to add comparison based on the parameters
6. Are the methods and analysis described with sufficient details? (Write critical
comments)
Need Elaboration on algorithm, only generic content is described not chosen any
specific algorithm
7. Result analysis, conclusion and Overall evaluation (Write critical comments)
Results and Discussion is not clearly defined
8. Clarity in terms of Diagrams and Tables in Paper
Yes
9. Proper language usage in Paper
Yes
10. Proper Handling of Captions and References in Paper
Yes
11. SDG: To which Sustainable Development Goal does the contribution align?
Clean water and sanitation (SDG 6)
12. Strengths of the paper
novel idea but need more improvement
13. Limitations of the paper
Results and Discussion is not clear
14. Overall Recommendation
Accepted with Major Revision

You might also like