Determining Intermediary Closely Related Languages to Find a Mediator for Intertribal Conflict Resolution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study on this topic is fascinating. The structure is clear and logical and challenging. The research is timely and worthwhile.

Authors should follow the style of a structured abstract based on the IMRAD structure of a paper. The abstract should briefly state the purpose of the research, the principal results, and significant conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone.

I hope you find the following observations helpful:

Materials and methods: I found this section very important for the paper's readability. Methods should be described in detail. I think the research procedure could be much more clearly described using a diagram, highlighting its potential and limit.

Authors should consider more previous works (e.g., theoretical, conceptual, and empirical reviews) published in the literature. Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previously published studies. I strongly recommend adding these works to the list of references:

-     Zakharchenko O., Zakharchenko A., Fedushko S. Global Challenges Are Not For Women: Gender Peculiarities Of Content In Ukrainian Facebook Community During High-Involving Social Discussions. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. Vol 2616, 2020. p. 101-111. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2616/paper9.pdf

-          Sayan Saha, Kakelli Anil Kumar," Emoji Prediction Using Emerging Machine Learning Classifiers for Text-based Communication ", International Journal of Mathematical Sciences and Computing(IJMSC), Vol.8, No.1, pp. 37-43, 2022. DOI: 10.5815/ijmsc.2022.01.04

-          Pouyan Parsafard, Hadi Veisi, Niloofar Aflaki, Siamak Mirzaei, "Text Classification based on Discriminative-Semantic Features and Variance of Fuzzy Similarity", International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications(IJISA), Vol.14, No.2, pp.26-39, 2022. DOI: 10.5815/ijisa.2022.02.03

I strongly recommend adding these works to the list of references.

Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previously published studies.

The diagrammatic presentation of the study research will be the most substantial section of this work. I suggest adding a visual presentation of obtained outcomes in section Results.

Structure: Articles should be reformatted according to a standard structure, which is set out in the instructions for the authors of the Journal (sections are Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussions, Conclusion). See template.

I also suggest a grammar and spelling review. 

- "Wahyudi proposed the following ways to resolve a conflict [? ]:" etc

 The conclusion is thorough.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your valuable comments. We have responded to all your comments and appended them at the end of the manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper analyzes three classical pathfinding algorithms (Dijkstra, A*, and Yen’s K) for determining intermediary closely related languages used in Indonesian tribes. The ultimate goal is to find mediators for conflict resolution between the tribes. 

This research has an ambitious goal. However, the authors mix up the goal of this specific research and their ultimate goal in this paper, which make the logic of paper confusing. Analyzing the performances of three algorithms is a scientific research question, while resolving conflict between tribes is not. This paper does not answer whether the research results resolve the conflict.  Therefore, the title of this paper is not appropriate. Also, it is too reluctant to connect the analysis with the conflict resolution. My suggestion is that the authors focus on the specific research question in this paper and include a discussion section to show how such analysis would be useful.

If the ultimate goal is to find mediators for conflict resolution between the tribes, the authors need to clarify why the performance (execution time, cost, etc) are important for finding an appropriate mediator between languages. It seems to me whether the mediator is appropriate or not is far more important than the execution time of the algorithms. However, there is no conclusion about the appropriateness of the results in this paper. There is a huge gap between the research design and the ultimate goal of the authors. 

To analyze three classical pathfinding algorithms (Dijkstra, A*, and Yen’s K) is fine, but are there any existing results regarding the performance comparison among these algorithms? If so, I am wondering why the authors need to compare them? Also, the authors draw a conclusion based on several cases. Can these cases represent general conclusions? 

There are also some formatting issues in the paper. The numbering of references are not correct. 

In general, the paper is not well organized. Also, the logic of the research design need to be improved. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your valuable comments. We have responded to all your comments and appended them at the end of the manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, the authors search for intermediate languages by analyzing similarities and geographical distances between Indonesian languages. By finding the intermediate language, It is easy to find "mediators" who understand both languages and lead to dispute resolution. This research is significant but there are several unclear points as follows.

1. The aim of this paper

The authors should clearly state the aim of this paper.

The authors argue the superiority of the search method by comparing search time, cost, and geographical distance in the simulation results. However, the conclusion states that the searching methods have found intermediate languages. Which is the aim of this research, finding intermediate languages or finding a suitable method for searching known intermediate languages? 

If the latter is the goal, the authors should describe how they can determine if the found intermediate language is suitable or not.

2. Why is this research using non-conflicting language pairs?

Is it difficult to compare between conflicting languages? Readers will be most interested in analysis of disputed languages. Authors should provide justification for not using these languages. 

3. It would be better to use examples to explain how similar language conflicts occur, and what mechanisms lead to conflict resolution when there are speakers of similar languages from both conflicted languages.

4. Most of the figures are unclear and the characters are blurry and unreadable. It must be revised to suitable figures.

5. How significant is the differences in execution time? Is the similarity calculation between languages performed frequently? Otherwise, the reviewer thinks that it is unnecessary to compare the search methods by the differences in execution time.

6. It is unclear how the language locations are determined. Is it the city with the most speakers? Or is it the city near the center of the speaker distribution?

7. Wrong citation number on line 115.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your valuable comments. We have responded to all your comments and appended them at the end of the manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author responded to all your comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your valuable time and comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for the reply from the authors but I still have two major concerns.

1. Why does the performance (cost, execution time) of the pathfinding algorithms matter in this research? Since the performance analysis is the major part of this paper, the authors need to clarify the key research issue on why the performance of the pathfinding algorithms is essential in the process of determining intermediary closely related languages.

2. The case study only shows how the steps are executed. There is no discussion on whether the obtained path is good or not. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your valuable comments. We have responded to all your comments and appended them at the end of the manuscript (Round 2). Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors clarified my previous concerns.