Next Article in Journal
Multivariate Fractal Functions in Some Complete Function Spaces and Fractional Integral of Continuous Fractal Functions
Next Article in Special Issue
Diffusion in Heterogenous Media and Sorption—Desorption Processes
Previous Article in Journal
An Infinite System of Fractional Order with p-Laplacian Operator in a Tempered Sequence Space via Measure of Noncompactness Technique
Previous Article in Special Issue
Quantum Walks in Hilbert Space of Lévy Matrices: Recurrences and Revivals
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Optimizing the First-Passage Process on a Class of Fractal Scale-Free Trees

Fractal Fract. 2021, 5(4), 184; https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract5040184
by Long Gao 1,2,†, Junhao Peng 1,2,*,† and Chunming Tang 1,2,†
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Fractal Fract. 2021, 5(4), 184; https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract5040184
Submission received: 19 September 2021 / Revised: 17 October 2021 / Accepted: 21 October 2021 / Published: 25 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fractional Dynamics: Theory and Applications)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have evaluated analytically the global mean first passage time (GMFPT) for unbiased and biased random walks on a class of fractal scale-free trees dominated by two integer parameters u and v.

1) The adequacy of the proposed models for real networks has not been confirmed.

I would recommend adding a little more detail to explain that if these systems are peculiar, what makes them so?

2) There are missing experiments with real systems to make the manuscript convincing.

3) What are the reasons for the selection of the parameter w range from 0 to 5 for simulation?

4) What is the unit of ordinate in Fig. 5-8.

5) Most importantly, there is no comparison in this manuscript. What is the performance of other methods on the same problem?

Author Response

see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

see enclosed pdf file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Undoubtedly, the article is of scientific interest.

However, in my opinion, the authors did not give convincing and concrete answers to the posed questions 1, 2, 5.

Author Response

seee attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the revised version the authors addressed all the raised issues.

I think the paper can be now accepted for publication.

Author Response

We are very grateful to the reviewer, for his/her reports. and for stating that the paper can be now accepted for publication. 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Your article is a good starting point. I think that you will answer my comments on practical application in your subsequent publications.

Back to TopTop