RETRACTED: A deep facial recognition system using computational intelligent algorithms

Diaa Salama AbdELminaam; Abdulrhman M. Almansori; Mohamed Taha; Elsayed Badr

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242269

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 28, 2020
29 Jun 2020 Decision Letter - Dilbag Singh, Editor PONE-D-20-15335 Deep face recognition using computational intelligence algorithms Deep Face Recognition System PLOS ONE Dear Dr. salama, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Dear authors it is also recommended that the authors should add some recent papers of PLOS one journal. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 13 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Dilbag Singh Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2.We note that Figure(s) in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: 1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” 2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. 3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 12 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 5.We note that Figure [1, 4, 5, 11 and 12] includes an image of a patient / participant in the study. As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: In this paper authors addressed the deep FR system using TL in fog computing. Problem taken has great significance and technical contribution is also present. Minor changes are recommended: 1. The main objective achieved needs some more evidences. 2. More details are required about the pre-processing done. 3. Very less information is present about the feature extraction. 4. Security of the system needs quantitatively parameters support. 5. Very few literature reviewed about fog computing, need to incorporate more related and latest work(2019, 2020) about the problem. 6. The related work can be extended by including the following papers: (a) Schiller, D., Huber, T., Dietz, M., & André, E. (2020). Relevance-based data masking: a model-agnostic transfer learning approach for facial expression recognition. (b) Prakash, R. M., Thenmoezhi, N., & Gayathri, M. (2019, November). Face Recognition with Convolutional Neural Network and Transfer Learning. In 2019 International Conference on Smart Systems and Inventive Technology (ICSSIT) (pp. 861-864). IEEE. (c)Singh, D., Kumar, V., Vaishali & Kaur, M. (2020). Classification of COVID-19 patients from chest CT images using multi-objective differential evolution–based convolutional neural networks. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 1-11. Reviewer #2: Main aim of the proposed work is to present face recognition task with the use of transfer function. The evaluation has been done using datasets and better classification results have been achieved. The paper presents the results and analysis very well. A very few grammatical errors may be checked for final presentation. Reviewer #3: 1. The quality of some figures is very poor. 2. There are number of grammatical mistakes and Typo errors in the manuscript, such as As such, face recognition or authentication area of research.. is still mostly an unexplored environmentsTherefore, the main 3. The abstract is very poorly written and organized. The number of mistakes in it. It should be concise and clear for better understanding. 4. Authors have poorly organized the paper. No sections and subsections are marked properly. 5. The paper seems to be review paper than research paper. Authors have added unnecessary details in the manuscript. 6. First of all, why authors mentioned Table 2 in related work? Secondly, Description and definitions of parameters and symbols of Table 2 are not mentioned. 7. Author should define the parameter settings of each technique including proposed one. 8. The current comparisons with competitive models are limited. Consider more effective techniques. 9. Significant analyses are completely missing. 10. Use either tables or graphs for comparative analysis. Both are creating chaos. Reviewer #4: The following suggestions need to be incorporated before submitting the manuscript: 1. There are many grammatical and spelling mistakes throughout the manuscript which needs to be modified. 2. The abstract should mention the machine learning algorithms used in this work. 3. There is no clear mentioning about the contributions of the paper. 4. Use of very short sentences such as "Then, recognition is performed" must be avoided. 5. Discussion of related work on the machine learning approaches should be extended with the following papers, which recently came into my attention because they proved to be successful in various applications: N-semble: neural network based ensemble approach Deep Transfer Learning based Classification Model for COVID-19 Disease An Expert Approach for Data Flow Prediction: Case Study of Wireless Sensor Networks Computed tomography reconstruction on distributed storage using hybrid regularization approach Machine learning for computer and cyber security: principle, algorithms, and practices 6. In Table 2, the parameters such as TP,FN,P, N, TN stands for? It is a much better practice to explain these in paragraph form and then add the formulas. 7. Correct he heading "Materials and Methods", "Results and Discussions". Take care of the typos in the manuscript. 8. Instead of our proposed system, it is better practice to use the proposed system. The accuracy of the proposed system in Table 6 for the CNN model comes out to be 100%. In the real-world systems this is impossible, kindly justify the value. 9. The conclusion should also include the future perspective of this work. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242269.r001
Revision 1
5 Sep 2020 Author Response Firstly ; According to the Editor request, the authors confirmed that all images in the paper is created by the authors themselves and have not previously been copyrighted. Also, the authors confirmed that The individual pictured in Fig 1, Fig 5, Fig 6, Fig 11, Fig 12.has provided written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish their image alongside the manuscript". Response letter on reviewers PONE-D-20-15335 Deep face recognition using computational intelligence algorithms Deep Face Recognition System To: PLOS ONE Editor Re: Response to reviewers Dear Editor, Thank you for allowing us to resubmit our manuscript after addressing the reviewers’ comments. We are uploading (a) Our point-by-point responses to the comments (below) (response to reviewers), (b) An updated manuscript with changes highlighted in yellow, and (c) A clean updated manuscript without highlights (PDF main document). Best regards, Sincerely, Dr: Diaa Salama Abd Elminaam Information Systems Department, Faculty of Computers and Informatics, Benha University, Benha City, Egypt, +201019511000 Diaa.salama@fci.bu.edu.eg ________________________________________ First, I would like to thank the Editor for these valuable comments that improve my paper. Second, I replied to every comment, as shown below. First, I would like to thank the Editors for their recommendation of the manuscript. According to Journal Requirements ________________________________________ Concern # 1: 1Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Response: I considered this point and improved it. The paper is re-edited and formatted by 3rd party service for language polishing https://www.aje.com/c/ieee” The editing certificate is attached in the Supplementary Materials. In addition, the manuscript was revised before the first submission through 3rd party service for language polishing (https://www.aje.com/c/ieee) was used for subsequent language editing. Author response: Done ________________________________________ Concern # 2: 2.We note that Figure(s) in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: 1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” Response you are right; I considered this point removed all copyrights figures and add new figures and adde a written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures Author action: The appropriate change was made such as figure 1 , 12 . ________________________________________ Concern # 3: 3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 12 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. Response: you are right. You are right; I ; I considered this point Author action: Done , The appropriate change was made ________________________________________ Concern # 4: 5.We note that Figure [1, 4, 5, 11 and 12] includes an image of a patient/participant in the study. As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. Response you are right; I considered this point removed all copyrights figures and added new pictures and added written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures Author action: The appropriate change was made, such as figure 1, 12. ________________________________________ Reviewer Requirements (1st reviewer) First, I would like to thank the reviewer for these valuable comments that improve my paper. Second, I replied to every comment as shown below. Reviewer#1, First, I would like to thank the first reviewer for their recommendation (Minor changes are recommended:) of the manuscript. ________________________________________ Reviewer#1, Concern # 1: The main objective achieved needs some more evidences. Response: I considered this point and improved it. I revised it and concentrated on the main objective. Author response: This text was revised. An explanation has been provided. ________________________________________ Reviewer#1, Concern # 2: More details are required about the pre-processing done. Response you are right; I have added more details about the pre-processing step in the material and methods section 4.3 (Adaptive Deep Convolutional Neural Networks) which lists the strategic parameters of each step and the associated values. (The general overall view of the proposed face recognition system is shown in Fig .4 ) Author action: The appropriate change was made. ________________________________________ Reviewer#1, Concern # 3: Very less information is present about the feature extraction. Response: you are right. You are right; I have added more details about the pre-processing step in the material and methods section 4.3 (Adaptive Deep Convolutional Neural Networks) which lists the strategic parameters of each step and the associated values. (The general overall view of the proposed face recognition system is shown in Fig .4 ) Author action: The appropriate change was made. ________________________________________ Reviewer#1, Concern # 4: Security of the system needs quantitatively parameters support. Response : I considered this point and improved it. Author action: An explanation has been provided. ________________________________________ Reviewer#1, Concern # 5: Very few literature reviewed about fog computing, need to incorporate more related and latest work (2019, 2020) about the problem. Response : I revised the literature reviewed about fog computing . I considered this point and improved it that improves the quality of my paper as much as possible. Author action: We updated the manuscript and added an explanation for the literature reviewed ________________________________________ Reviewer#1, Concern # 6: The related work can be extended by including the following papers: (a) Schiller, D., Huber, T., Dietz, M., & André, E. (2020). Relevance-based data masking: a model-agnostic transfer learning approach for facial expression recognition. (b) Prakash, R. M., Thenmoezhi, N., & Gayathri, M. (2019, November). Face Recognition with Convolutional Neural Network and Transfer Learning. In 2019 International Conference on Smart Systems and Inventive Technology (ICSSIT) (pp. 861-864). IEEE. (c)Singh, D., Kumar, V., Vaishali & Kaur, M. (2020). Classification of COVID-19 patients from chest CT images using multi-objective differential evolution–based convolutional neural networks. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 1-11. Response : I considered this point and revised The related work and considered theses good papers (References 8, 9 , 10 )that improve the quality of my paper as much as possible . “ the reference section reordered” Some references that are recommended are added . Author action: The appropriate change was made. ________________________________________ Actually, I gained from these comments a lot and worked on them to improve the quality of my paper as much as possible. Thank you. ________________________________________ Reviewer Requirements (2nd reviewer) Reviewer#2, First, I would like to thank the secand reviewer for their recommendation (Main aim of the proposed work is to present face recognition task with the use of transfer function. The evaluation has been done using datasets and better classification results have been achieved. The paper presents the results and analysis very well. .:) of the manuscript. ________________________________________ Reviewer#2, Concern # 1: A very few grammatical errors may be checked for final presentation Response : I considered this point and improved it . Although the paper has been revised 3 times before by 3rd party service for language polishing , We will consider this point and send it again to the 3rd party service for language polishing https://www.aje.com/c/ieee” The editing certificate is attached in the Supplementary Materials. In addition, the manuscript was revised before the first submission through 3rd party service for language polishing (https://www.aje.com/c/ieee) was used for subsequent language editing. Based on your comments about the editing and grammar, we have again submitted the paper to the 3rd party service for language editing. The editing certificates are as follows. Final Editing Certificate 1st Editing Certificate 2nd Editing Certificate 3rd Editing Certificate Author response: This text was revised. Author action: Done. ________________________________________ Actually, I gained from these comments a lot and worked on them to improve the quality of my paper as much as possible. Thank you. ________________________________________ Reviewer Requirements (3rd reviewer) Reviewer#3, Concern # 1: The quality of some figures is very poor. Response I considered this point and improved the quality of the figures with one more clearly for better understanding Author action: The appropriate change was made. ________________________________________ Reviewer#3, Concern # 2: There are number of grammatical mistakes and Typo errors in the manuscript, such as As such, face recognition or authentication area of research.. is still mostly an unexplored environmentsTherefore, the main Response I considered this point and improved it . Although the paper has been revised 3 times before by 3rd party service for language polishing , We will consider this point and send it again to the 3rd party service for language polishing https://www.aje.com/c/ieee” The editing certificate is attached in the Supplementary Materials. In addition, the manuscript was revised before the first submission through 3rd party service for language polishing (https://www.aje.com/c/ieee) was used for subsequent language editing. Based on your comments about the editing and grammar, we have again submitted the paper to the 3rd party service for language editing. The editing certificates are as follows. Final Editing Certificate 1st Editing Certificate 2nd Editing Certificate 3rd Editing Certificate Author response: This text was revised. Author action: Done. ________________________________________ Reviewer#3, Concern # 3: The abstract is very poorly written and organized. The number of mistakes in it. It should be concise and clear for better understanding. Response: you are right. I considered this point and improved it. Abstract is totally changed and re-edited. Author action: The appropriate change was made. ________________________________________ Reviewer#3, Concern # 4: Authors have poorly organized the paper. No sections and subsections are marked properly. Response: I considered this point and improved it will be reformat the paper by 3rd party service for language polishing https://www.aje.com/c/ieee” to be in PLOS ONE journal format. Also all sections and subsections are marked. Author action: The appropriate change was made. ________________________________________ Reviewer#3, Concern # 5: The paper seems to be review paper than research paper. Authors have added unnecessary details in the manuscript. Response: I considered this point and removed all unnecessary data .I revised it and just considered the relevant ones. Author action: The appropriate change was made. ________________________________________ Reviewer#3, Concern # 6: First of all, why authors mentioned Table 2 in related work? Secondly, Description and definitions of parameters and symbols of Table 2 are not mentioned. Response : I you are right , I review the paper and found that table 2 mention in related work section by mistake (it should be in results and discussion section ) .so I considered this point and revised The related work and changed the parameters setting and symbols of table 2 to be in equation form. Author action: The appropriate change was made. ________________________________________ Reviewer#3, Concern # 7: Author should define the parameter settings of each technique including proposed one. Response the material and methods section ( section 4.3 Adaptive Deep Convolutional Neural Networks) are totally changed which lists the strategic parameters of each step and the associated values. (The general overall view of the proposed face recognition system is shown in Fig .4 ).table 2 shows the Parameters settings used in the experiments Author action: The appropriate change was made. ________________________________________ Reviewer#3, Concern # 8: The current comparisons with competitive models are limited. Consider more effective techniques. Response I considered this point. Author action: The appropriate change was made. ________________________________________ Reviewer#3, Concern # 9: Significant analyses are completely missing. Response: you are right. I considered this point and improved it. The and methodology section (section 4.3) are totally updated. Author action: The appropriate change was made. ________________________________________ Reviewer#3, Concern # 10: Use either tables or graphs for comparative analysis. Both are creating chaos. Response: I considered this point and improved it. Author action: The appropriate change was made. ________________________________________ Actually, I gained from these comments a lot and worked on them to improve the quality of my paper as much as possible. Thank you. ________________________________________ Reviewer Requirements (4th reviewer) ________________________________________ Reviewer#4, Concern # 1: There are many grammatical and spelling mistakes throughout the manuscript which needs to be modified. Response I considered this point and improved it . Although the paper has been revised 3 times before by 3rd party service for language polishing , We will consider this point and send it again to the 3rd party service for language polishing https://www.aje.com/c/ieee” The editing certificate is attached in the Supplementary Materials. In addition, the manuscript was revised before the first submission through 3rd party service for language polishing (https://www.aje.com/c/ieee) was used for subsequent language editing. Based on your comments about the editing and grammar, we have again submitted the paper to the 3rd party service for language editing. The editing certificates are as follows. Final Editing Certificate 1st Editing Certificate 2nd Editing Certificate 3rd Editing Certificate Author action: Done ________________________________________ Reviewer#4, Concern # 2: The abstract should mention the machine learning algorithms used in this work. Response you are right I considered this point and revised the abstract totally. Author response: This text was revised. An explanation has been provided. ________________________________________ Reviewer#4, Concern # 3: There is no clear mentioning about the contributions of the paper. Response: you are right. I considered this point and improved it. I revised the paper totally. Author response: This text was revised. An explanation has been provided. ________________________________________ Reviewer#4, Concern # 4: Use of very short sentences such as "Then, recognition is performed" must be avoided. Response: I considered this point and improved it. Author response: I considered this point and improved it. Although the paper has been revised 3 times before by 3rd party service for language polishing , we will consider this point and send it again to the 3rd party service for language polishing https://www.aje.com/c/ieee” ________________________________________ Reviewer#4, Concern # 5: Discussion of related work on the machine learning approaches should be extended with the following papers, which recently came into my attention because they proved to be successful in various applications: N-semble: neural network based ensemble approach Deep Transfer Learning based Classification Model for COVID-19 Disease An Expert Approach for Data Flow Prediction: Case Study of Wireless Sensor Networks Computed tomography reconstruction on distributed storage using hybrid regularization approach Machine learning for computer and cyber security: principle, algorithms, and practices Response : I revised the literature reviewed. I considered these respected papers that improves the quality of my paper as much as possible. Author response: Done ________________________________________ Reviewer#4, Concern # 6: In Table 2, the parameters such as TP,FN,P, N, TN stands for? It is a much better practice to explain these in paragraph form and then add the formulas. Response : I considered this point and change table 2 parameters to equations 5,6,7, and 8 Author response: Done ________________________________________ Reviewer#4, Concern # 7: Correct the heading "Materials and Methods", "Results and Discussions". Take care of the typos in the manuscript. Response I considered this point and revised the paper. Author response: Done ________________________________________ Reviewer#4, Concern # 8: Instead of our proposed system, it is better practice to use the proposed system. The accuracy of the proposed system in Table 6 for the CNN model comes out to be 100%. In the real-world systems this is impossible, kindly justify the value. Response I considered this point and improved it. I checked the results and found a bug in my work. So, I repeated all the experiments again to check the correctness of the results. Author action: The appropriate change was made. ________________________________________ Reviewer#4, Concern # 9: The conclusion should also include the future perspective of this work. Response : I considered this point and improved it. Author action: The appropriate change was made. ________________________________________ Actually, I gained from these comments a lot and worked on them to improve the quality of my paper as much as possible. Thank you. Response letter PONE-D-20-15335 Deep face recognition using computational intelligence algorithms Deep Face Recognition System To: PLOS ONE Editor Re: Response to reviewers Dear Editor, Thank you for allowing us to resubmit our manuscript after addressing the Editor comments. We are uploading (a) Our point-by-point responses to the comments (below) (response to Editor), Best regards, Sincerely, Dr: Diaa Salama Abd Elminaam Information Systems Department, Faculty of Computers and Informatics, Benha University, Benha City, Egypt, +201019511000 Diaa.salama@fci.bu.edu.eg ________________________________________ First, I would like to thank the editor for these valuable comments that improve my paper. Second, I replied to every comment as shown below. ________________________________________ The Editor Concern # 1: We note the following figures contain images of faces: Fig 1, Fig 5, Fig 6, Fig 11, Fig 12. Additionally, we note the following figures may contain copyrighted images: Fig 9 and Fig 10. 1) Please disclose whether or not the participants shown in Fig 1, Fig 5, Fig 6, Fig 11, Fig 12 consented to having this image published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license and signed the PLOS Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). If the participants completed the consent form, please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: "The individual pictured in Fig _____ has provided written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish their image alongside the manuscript". Response: I considered this point and improved it. The individual pictured in Fig 1, Fig 5, Fig 6, Fig 11, Fig 12.has provided written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish their image alongside the manuscript". the consent form for Abd Elrahman Almansori (Fig 1, Fig 5, Fig 6, Fig 11, Fig 12) the consent form for Faris Noori(Fig 6, Fig 12) the consent form for khaled Alrahidi(Fig 6, Fig 12) the consent form for Mohamed Ahussani(Fig 6, Fig 12) ________________________________________ The Editor Concern # 2: Please explain where the authors obtained the images in Fig 1, Fig 5, Fig 6, Fig 9, Fig 10, Fig 11, and Fig 12 in your submission or if the authors created the image themselves. Response: the authors created the images in Fig 1, Fig 5, Fig 6, Fig 9, Fig 10, Fig 11, and Fig 12 in the submission themselves. the authors didn't obtain the images in Fig 1, Fig 5, Fig 6, Fig 9, Fig 10, Fig 11, and Fig 12 in the submission from anywhere ________________________________________ The Editor Concern # 3: 4) If any of the images in the above mentioned figures have been previously copyrighted, PLOS ONE is unable to publish this image, as all content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license. to seek permission from the copyright owner to publish these figures under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL), CC BY 4.0, please contact them with the following text and PLOS ONE Request for Permission form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf): "I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license." Please upload the granted permission to the manuscript as a Supporting Information file. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: "Republished from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year]." Please note that RightsLink permission forms often impose use restrictions that are incompatible with our CC BY 4.0 license, and we are therefore unable to accept these permissions. For this reason, we strongly recommend contacting copyright holders with the PLOS ONE Request for Permission form. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder, please either remove the figure or supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image used in the study, and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. Response: the authors confirmed that the figures mentioned above haven't previously copyrighted. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242269.r002
30 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Seyedali Mirjalili, Editor A deep facial recognition system using computational intelligent algorithms PONE-D-20-15335R1 Dear Dr. salama, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Seyedali Mirjalili Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All the questions have been answered well. The manuscript is more presentable and improved in terms of discussion and analysis. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242269.r003
Formally Accepted
12 Nov 2020 Acceptance Letter - Seyedali Mirjalili, Editor PONE-D-20-15335R1 A deep facial recognition system using computational intelligent algorithms Dear Dr. Salama AbdELminaam: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Seyedali Mirjalili Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242269.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .