Next Article in Journal
Research on Offloading Strategy for Mobile Edge Computing Based on Improved Grey Wolf Optimization Algorithm
Next Article in Special Issue
Privacy-Enhancing Technologies in Federated Learning for the Internet of Healthcare Things: A Survey
Previous Article in Journal
Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Electronics
Previous Article in Special Issue
Magnetic Localization of Wireless Ingestible Capsules Using a Belt-Shaped Array Transmitter
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Validation Study to Confirm the Accuracy of Wearable Devices Based on Health Data Analysis

Electronics 2023, 12(11), 2536; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12112536
by Nikola Hrabovska 1,2,*, Erik Kajati 1 and Iveta Zolotova 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Electronics 2023, 12(11), 2536; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12112536
Submission received: 24 April 2023 / Revised: 26 May 2023 / Accepted: 2 June 2023 / Published: 4 June 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Major revision is required for this manuscript before consideration for publication.

1. The data organization in the manuscript should be improved. For example, the meaning of recorded data in Table 1 and 4 are unclear; In line 367,"Although subjective, rating exertion on a rating scale of 6 to 20, as seen in Table 3”,it should be Figure 3; Figure 5 is not discussed in the manuscript.

2. In Line 343, 'We have distorted the data and plotted it from the date 19/11/2021 to 20/06/2021 to make the results more visible' while it was not included in Figure 2.

3.In Line 361, 'At Figure 4, we can see a comparison of 2 physical activities based

on their maximum heart rate' while Figure 4 shows average BPM values.

4. The supporting data for those values of "27%, 72%, 22% ''etc in Section 4.2.2 are missing.

5. In Figure 9, BMP values are recorded while it was illustrated as Calories burned. 
 

should be polished.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

please see the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf


Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

A point to point response letter is normally required

Ordinarily written.

Reviewer 2 Report

All major comments were adequately addressed and the Authors have done an admirable job of improving the quality of the manuscript. Therefore, it can be accepted without any structural modification. 

Back to TopTop