The article is hard to follow. The main problem is that it does not give an ``overview diagram’’. The relations of sections 2 to 5 are not very clear. It appears that papers in this scope are presented with a flatten manner.
From R2:
Another observation concerns structure and form: the paper is written in a strange way, basically structured as comments / reactions to references. In the end, one gets the impression of being reading the notes the authors might have taken to write a paper, rather than the paper itself.
Even in what concerns form this is a mess: e.g. i) page 2 - why are bullets labelled 6.5 and 6.6?; ii) page 7 - section 5 ends incompletely.
From R1:
The article is hard to follow. The main problem is that it does not give an ``overview diagram’’. The relations of sections 2 to 5 are not very clear. It appears that papers in this scope are presented with a flatten manner.
From R2:
Another observation concerns structure and form: the paper is written in a strange way, basically structured as comments / reactions to references. In the end, one gets the impression of being reading the notes the authors might have taken to write a paper, rather than the paper itself. Even in what concerns form this is a mess: e.g. i) page 2 - why are bullets labelled 6.5 and 6.6?; ii) page 7 - section 5 ends incompletely.