Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some figures and tables are not appropriately referenced in the text. Ensure that all figures and tables are explicitly mentioned and discussed in the relevant sections of the article.

The article exhibits  disconnections between its conclusions and the main content, leading to concerns regarding the coherence of its arguments. The conclusion needs to be improved to include all the elements.

After incorporating these comments, I recommend accepting the contribution.

Author Response

Response to comments of Reviewer

We would like to thank the referee for the careful reading of the previous version of the paper and the helpful comments. We have attempted to take on board all the remarks and deal with them appropriately. We provide a point-by-point list of the revisions below. We believe that the suggestions of the referee have improved the paper considerably.

Reviewer #1:

Comment 1

Some figures and tables are not appropriately referenced in the text. Ensure that all figures and tables are explicitly mentioned and discussed in the relevant sections of the article.

All figures and tables have been checked in this context and even the equations.

Comment 2

The article exhibits disconnections between its conclusions and the main content, leading to concerns regarding the coherence of its arguments. The conclusion needs to be improved to include all the elements.

• The aim of the study was to develop and explain more in the first section.
• A section “3-Hypothesis development “for has been added
• The conclusion section contains a discussion of the limitations and some suggestions for further research in the context of our analysis.

We appreciate the reviewer’s recommendation; we have revised all section of the paper. For the purpose to clarify and to simplify the lecture of paper, we have explained more the contribution and our goals.

Reviewer #2:

Comment

The paper would benefit from shortening the literature review and the presentation and interpretation of the results. Here too much technical information is shared but the interpretation and the relevance of the result could be extended or explained in more detail.

The Abstract occasionally uses somewhat strange expressions, the language should be revised. The text of the body of the paper is fine in terms of the English it uses.

• All figures and tables have been checked in this context and even the equations.
• The aim of the study was to develop and explain more in the first section.
• A section “3-Hypothesis development “for has been added
• The conclusion section contains a discussion of the limitations and some suggestions for further research in the context of our analysis.

Thanks a lot for your valuable comments. We added explanations about this issue.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper would benefit from shortening the literature review and the presentation and interpretation of the results. Here too much technical information is shared but the interpretation and the relevance of the result could be extended or explained in more detail.

The Abstract occasionnaly uses somewhat strange expressions, the language should be revised. The text of the body of the paper is fine in terms of the English it uses.

Author Response

Response to comments of Reviewer

We would like to thank the referee for the careful reading of the previous version of the paper and the helpful comments. We have attempted to take on board all the remarks and deal with them appropriately. We provide a point-by-point list of the revisions below. We believe that the suggestions of the referee have improved the paper considerably.

Reviewer #1:

Comment 1

Some figures and tables are not appropriately referenced in the text. Ensure that all figures and tables are explicitly mentioned and discussed in the relevant sections of the article.

All figures and tables have been checked in this context and even the equations.

Comment 2

The article exhibits disconnections between its conclusions and the main content, leading to concerns regarding the coherence of its arguments. The conclusion needs to be improved to include all the elements.

• The aim of the study was to develop and explain more in the first section.
• A section “3-Hypothesis development “for has been added
• The conclusion section contains a discussion of the limitations and some suggestions for further research in the context of our analysis.

We appreciate the reviewer’s recommendation; we have revised all section of the paper. For the purpose to clarify and to simplify the lecture of paper, we have explained more the contribution and our goals.

Reviewer #2:

Comment

The paper would benefit from shortening the literature review and the presentation and interpretation of the results. Here too much technical information is shared but the interpretation and the relevance of the result could be extended or explained in more detail.

The Abstract occasionally uses somewhat strange expressions, the language should be revised. The text of the body of the paper is fine in terms of the English it uses.

• All figures and tables have been checked in this context and even the equations.
• The aim of the study was to develop and explain more in the first section.
• A section “3-Hypothesis development “for has been added
• The conclusion section contains a discussion of the limitations and some suggestions for further research in the context of our analysis.

Thanks a lot for your valuable comments. We added explanations about this issue.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.doc