You are given a paper review either in Spanish or English language. Based on the given review, evaluate the paper by classifying it to one of the five classes: (1) very negative, (2) negative, (3) neutral, (4) positive, and (5) very positive. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

[Q]: The paper introduces a segmentation procedure for breast tissue images using SVM. General comments: a) Concerning the proposed approach: The segmentation method introduced only considers local color/gray value information. Perhaps introducing other features related to the membrane's local (e.g. the membrane has symmetry properties that can be exploited) or global (e.g. continuity, approximately circular shape) properties may improve the segmentation results. Feature selection is also a key component to improve performance. Use a feature selection procedure. b) Concerning the experimentation: You should describe the experiments with sufficient detail so others can replicate them: a) Make your data publicly available b) Explain how you have selected the classifier's parameters (parameter selection in an SVM is critical and may improve notably the performance). You should join Figs 10 and 9 in a single plot so we can better see the differences. You only provide qualitative segmentation results (Figs. 12, 14, 15), but quantitative results are also very important. Specially when it comes to comparisons. You should quantitatively compare your algorithm with other competing works in the literature. c) Concerning paper organization: The paper is well written and clearly introduces the problem, describes the relevant literature and presents the solution. I have a few comments concerning the paper organization: a) Problem statement and literature review (intro and theoretical framework sections) are in my opinion a bit long, compared to other important sections, e.g. feature extraction and experimentation which are just one paragraph each. b) Although English is in general correct, there are some small mistakes that could be solved by having it read by a professional. c) There are two "proposed method" sections Well written paper. Good literature review. It only shows very preliminary results.
[A]: very positive

[Q]: I recommend to change the paper title in order to be according to paper' body Review the English grammar, some but not all of the errors founded in the review are: Abstract o what does it mean that for them?--> what does it mean that for them? o utilized to represent its appropriateness.--> utilized to represent their appropriateness. Introducction o has like first phase --> ? o auscultating --> is it a verb? Background o A systematic mapping study is a methodology that is used --> A systematic mapping study is a methodology used o of existing research on performance evaluation -->of existing research on the performance evaluation o Only Dieste and Juristo's work [10] deals --> Only the work of Dieste and Juristo [10] deals Methodology o Review the use of ly with the verb to be o Third question: What kind of studies does use with a higher frequency certain constructs for o appropriateness of techniques? --> ? review the types question structure Classification schema o In order to answer the research questions, the literature review focused --> literature or mapping? Analysis of the result o in Figure 1 en DCM format -->in Figure 1 en DCM format. o article --> paper Conclusions and future works o For this reason, it is necessary that more proposals are carried out to help --> For this reason, it is necessary to carry out more proposals to help Figures: be careful on the figure's title, the title must be following the figure Type of studies Paragraph after figure 5: Experimental (paragraph) o experiment (figure) Techniques considered: I recommend performing a mapping between domains and techniques and or with the constructors and show the a graphic of the results instead of the figure 8
[A]: positive

[Q]: El articulo presenta un trabajo comparativo entre el uso de un SABD relacional clasico y un SABD temporal (la traduccion al ingles temporary parece no adecuada: temporal o time oriented parece mas correcto). El ejemplo planteado en el articulo es interesante y motivador, esta adecuadamente sustentado y da pie a la comparacion, como se indica "es necesario definir un escenario de pruebas donde exista una aplicacion concreta que pueda ser evaluada con la implementacion de los paradigmas a comparar". Hay dos aspectos que en que el articulo no es claro, y que le restan peso: 1) La tecnologia sabd temporal: pgFoundry, se indica que es una extension a PostgreSql. Sin embargo, no se da mayor informacion... al buscarla parece un proyecto cerrado??? como se trabajo con esta extension? 2) La tabla 3 deberia ser el centro del articulo, sin embargo no se describe como se realizaron muchas de las comparaciones. Quedando esto como una caja negra. Que criterios se utilizaron en las comparaciones? En las conclusiones hay algunas pistas, pero hay frases poco claras como: "Se puede encontrar una mayor flexibilidad de entrada de datos en el SGBDR, puesto que existen mas tipos de fuentes para poblar las bases de datos." Que se quiere decir con esto?
[A]:
neutral