Bangla DeConverter for Extraction of BanglaText from Universal Networking Language

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. It will be much better if the authors introduce what is Bengali in the first statement of abstract. Moreover, abstract must put concrete description or result, not only by mentioning "has been presented" or "has been shown" What differs the proposed method from previous works? The authors need to highlight the differences in the manuscript. Part of "Morphological Analysis" need to be described further. Currently, it is not clear. I suggest the author can provide a figure to make the morphological rules be easier to understand. While putting example, I suggest to use other fonts to ease the readers. Figure 6 & 8 is badly presented. I cannot understand the process because the figure is not understandable. Please do revise the way the authors presented the idea in section 4.2. The quality of writing decrease in each section, until this section. The authors need to rearrange statement by statement such that they are clear enough for others to read. Table 1 and table 2 are not understandable at all. How are the scores in figure 10 calculated? Please describe.

Lastly, English must be improved. Too many grammatical errors in this manuscript. I suggest the authors to use any proofread institution to make this paper becomes easy to understand.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, We have tried to updated our manuscript according to valuable comments. 

Here, we have attached file where we have mentioned the updates details.

In our updated main manuscript we highlights our changes by using this colour.

Please let us inform if any changes are required.

Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comment. My major comment is about the evaluation of the proposed DeConverter

The authors evaluated the proposed Panjabi DeConverter only with ONE other DeConverter. Why? The interpretation of Figure 10 shows that both DeConverters perform similarly. How significance is this slight improvement?

 

Comment. Use equation editor to improve the presentation of all mathematical formulas

 

Comment. Improve the quality of all figures. They are blur. Moreover, I cannot interpretate the figure in Page 11.

 

Comment. The structure of the manuscript should be significantly improved

Section 1.2 should be a separate section (i.e. Section 2) and it should be increased. Notice that in Section 1.2, the authors just mentioned the related works regarding DeCo proposed by other researchers. I suggest them to briefly present each work by devoting one paragraph for each one of them. Section 1.3. should be in a separate section (i.e. Section 3)

 

Comment. The authors should present more information about the implementation and is a prototype is available for evaluation by other researchers.

 

Comment. Include some future work in Section 6.

 

Comment.  Extensive editing of English language and style required.

 

Some minor comments

“this paper” is referred three times in the abstract. In the abstract, what is BLEU? Line 29. Replace “subject, verb and object” and “Subject, Verb and Object”

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, We have  updated our manuscript according to your valuable comments.

Here, we have attached the file where we mention about our updates details.

In our updated main manuscript we highlights our changes by using this colour.

Please let us inform if any changes are required.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version is enough in my perspective. Hopefully, this paper can be cited a lot by other researchers. Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors updated the manuscript according to the previous comment and suggestions.