On the Fractional Maximal Delta Integral Type Inequalities on Time Scales
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review report: Dear \ Editor/ Author I have written this paper again and again. It is a pleasant paper with different results. Nevertheless, I feel the article has to address the following issues and has to be thoroughly modified, and a revised version should be submitted. 1. The similarity of this paper is 41%, so it is so high, so the authors have to reduce it. I attached the similarity report to use it in the reducing operation. 2. There exist some of the English Grammar mistakes, so the authors have to revise the whole paper again. 3. The authors should extend the introduction to describe much better their novelties and the physical meaning for the suggested model. 4. What are the advantages of the current methods over techniques that exist in the literature? 5. The novelty of the given solutions is not shown well, so I recommend adding a new section (result and discussion) to show the originality of the obtained solutions and the difference between both used methods 6. The reviewed literature about this work was not complete; the following actions, all papers, should be cited in the revised manuscript: a) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217984920502255 b) https://doi.org/10.1142/S021798492050044X c) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2019.109473 d) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103000 e) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.01.044 f) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.12.043 g) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.12.043 Finally, the manuscript needs a major revision.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I mentioned the revisions I made item by item. The file is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The author revised all the points except point 5 & 6 in the last report. Revise it before final submission.
The author responded the following but it is not found in the revised paper
5. Comparison with other studies. Necessary explanations can be seen in the conclusion section.
6. References mentioned by the esteemed referee were added to the article.
Author Response
I took into consideration the valuable opinions of the esteemed referee. Revision report is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and suggestion are attached as a PDF
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
I took into consideration the valuable opinions of the esteemed referee. Revision report is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I do not feel that items 6 and 7 of the first review have been addressed. See attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your contribution to the article. I tried to illuminate the points you mentioned in your report.
Best regards,
Lütfi Akın
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Revision notes
- In abstract section, please change “considerate of” to “consider”
- In (1.1), t belongs to [0, 1] must be carefully checked again.
- Please give the proofs of Lemma 2.1 and 2.2. Alternatively, please cite a references for them.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the valuable contribution of the referee who reviewed my article.
I think some of the points mentioned by the esteemed referee have nothing to do with my article.
For example; Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2 are not included in my article.
But anyways, I revised my article according to the points pointed by the esteemed referee.
I uploaded the revised version to the system.
Best Regards,
Lütfi Akın
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is written on a subject which is quite active with many results already obtained. The paper builds up closely upon known facts. Therefore, it does not really contribute to the corresponding literature. Regretfully I do not recommend it for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
The results are very elementary. The authors are used the methods of calculus used for the classic cases. In addition, the paper is written very badly
Reviewer 4 Report
See the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
