Intelligent Information System for Product Promotion in Internet Market

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this very interesting article. I have a few suggestions that in my opinion will affect its value for readers.

1. References require minor adjustments to the requirements of the journal. It suggests avoiding the phrase "in Reference [x]" and instead providing the name of the author along with the reference number.

2. The methodology should be given in the abstract and in the article.

3. Have you analyzed the limitations of the presented system?

4. It is worth expanding on the part concerning future research.

Author Response

Point 1: References require minor adjustments to the requirements of the journal. It suggests avoiding the phrase "in Reference [x]" and instead providing the name of the author along with the reference number.

Response 1: I added

Point 2: The methodology should be given in the abstract and in the article.

Response 2:  I added

Point 3: Have you analyzed the limitations of the presented system?

Response 3: Added to the discussion

Point 4: It is worth expanding on the part concerning future research.

Response 4: Added to her conclusions

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewed topic deals with the up-to-date topic of developing and applying intelligent informative systems in online marketing. The paper is a follow-up work building upon and combining the results of the previous works of the Authors. 

The argumentation for the need for such a work and description of the used methodology is clear, compelling and easy to follow. The same can be said about the chosen and presented case study of how the proposed method for the creation of compelling online advertisement works.

However, the reviewed work has some drawbacks. 

First, the introduction provides some background on the chosen topic but without referring to any external sources. The importance of the topic is highlighted, but not the research gap, the contribution (cheaper ads are pointed out later on in the text, but not in the introduction) of the work for the potential stakeholders (is it better for small b2c sellers or for big online shops?), what are the limitations of this methods (does it work strictly with the FaceBook infrastructure or can it be applied on different social media or as search engines ads?). The goal is stated in such a way that it is hard to say what exactly the Authors are trying to achieve here.

In the “Related Works” section, the Authors stated and related to works about how users influence the ads, then mention the body of works about developing information systems for internet marketing, without referencing any and pointing at it as a potential gap (without using that phrase). It should be reworked (ideally by adding some examples from the aforementioned body of works) to indicate why the current paper is novel and important.

The ”Discussion” section is more like a conclusion than a discussion. The authors mention the previous attempts at developing intelligent information systems (those works that are missing from the “Related Works” section) and how their effects differ from them, but rather in general terms (increasing effectiveness, decreasing costs) without any in-depth analysis. Later on, they refer to their own previous works which are the basis for the current one and two other works used for developing the model. And that’s the end of comparisons to any other works – so it is hard to count it as a proper discussion. Especially as the following page summarizes results (which already were presented earlier), discusses limitations of the current work and sets further research directions (which should be a part of the conclusion). And then we have section 6 “Conclusion”, which sums up section 5 “Discussion” without adding anything new – and thus being redundant. Recommendations: rework section 1 “Introduction” and both section 5 “Discussion” and section 6 “Conclusion”. 

The language is mostly fine (some small flaws will most probably be worked out during the proofreading) and does not require any serious corrections.

Author Response

Point 1: First, the introduction provides some background on the chosen topic but without referring to any external sources. The importance of the topic is highlighted, but not the research gap, the contribution (cheaper ads are pointed out later on in the text, but not in the introduction) of the work for the potential stakeholders (is it better for small b2c sellers or for big online shops?), what are the limitations of this methods (does it work strictly with the FaceBook infrastructure or can it be applied on different social media or as search engines ads?). The goal is stated in such a way that it is hard to say what exactly the Authors are trying to achieve here.

Response 1: all recommendations are taken into account

Point 2: In the “Related Works” section, the Authors stated and related to works about how users influence the ads, then mention the body of works about developing information systems for internet marketing, without referencing any and pointing at it as a potential gap (without using that phrase). It should be reworked (ideally by adding some examples from the aforementioned body of works) to indicate why the current paper is novel and important.

Response 2: Added table 5

Point 3: The ”Discussion” section is more like a conclusion than a discussion. The authors mention the previous attempts at developing intelligent information systems (those works that are missing from the “Related Works” section) and how their effects differ from them, but rather in general terms (increasing effectiveness, decreasing costs) without any in-depth analysis. Later on, they refer to their own previous works which are the basis for the current one and two other works used for developing the model. And that’s the end of comparisons to any other works – so it is hard to count it as a proper discussion. Especially as the following page summarizes results (which already were presented earlier), discusses limitations of the current work and sets further research directions (which should be a part of the conclusion). And then we have section 6 “Conclusion”, which sums up section 5 “Discussion” without adding anything new – and thus being redundant. Recommendations: rework section 1 “Introduction” and both section 5 “Discussion” and section 6 “Conclusion”. 

Response 3: all recommendations are taken into account

Reviewer 3 Report

A more thorough comparison of the proposed architecture with the architectures known earlier is needed. Section 2 briefly describes intelligent systems introduced in papers [32 - 34]. The Discussion section compares what these system enable with what is enabled by Intelligent Information System presented in the paper. However it would be useful to discuss the difference between architectures itself.

I detected at least six self-citations, which is unjustifiably many.

 

Also some editing may be needed. I am not sure if referring such as "Reference [8] presents...," "These References [7-9] analyze," "In Reference [10], the influence of ..." complies with the style of the journal. The phrase "the analysis of recent related references" looks a bit awkward to me.

Author Response

Point 1: A more thorough comparison of the proposed architecture with the architectures known earlier is needed. Section 2 briefly describes intelligent systems introduced in papers [32 - 34]. The Discussion section compares what these system enable with what is enabled by Intelligent Information System presented in the paper. However it would be useful to discuss the difference between architectures itself.

Response 1:  Added table 5

Point 2: I detected at least six self-citations, which is unjustifiably many.
Response 2: three studies have been replaced by

Point 3: Also some editing may be needed. I am not sure if referring such as "Reference [8] presents...," "These References [7-9] analyze," "In Reference [10], the influence of ..." complies with the style of the journal. The phrase "the analysis of recent related references" looks a bit awkward to me.
Response 3: recommendations made

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I find the rework of the both ”Discussion” and “Conclusion” sections appropriately improving their content and providing more value for the interested reader. Good work.

Author Response

Thanks for the good review!