In the revised version of our manuscript, we have incorporated all the comments and suggestions of the three reviewers as best as we can. This letter includes both the reviewer comments and our responses to these comments. In these responses, we have explained changes made to the manuscript on the basis of the reviewers' suggestions. We have also mentioned the locations in our revised manuscript where the changes have been made to help the reviewers locate these revisions. Wherever possible, we have provided an excerpt of the revised part.
Sincerely yours, The Authors
Editor's CommentsIn preparing the new revision authors addressed most of the reviewers concerns. The writing style improved and comparison with another tool is now presented.The paper quality was substantially improved, however, there are still a few points authors may want to consider prior to publication. In particular some style issues (reviewer 1) and some concern about the presented examples (see reviewer 3). We understand that sometime it may be more a matter of taste, nevertheless, it is important that examples clearly motivate and properly set the stage for the paper. ⇒ We revised the style and example issues according to the reviewer comments. Please see the following responses.Overall we suggest authors check the style (reviewer 1) and seriously consider comments of reviewer 3 on the paper presented examples, ambiguity and the need of such an approach. ⇒ For the Reviewer 1's comments, we revised all the style issues in Abstract, Section 1, 2, 3, and 4 as suggested. For the Reviewer 3's comments, we tried to convince why we used the examples and how our evaluation process confirmed that the examples are valid. Note that 16 human subjects reviewed the detection results and these are some of examples shown in the paper.
Reviewer #1's Comments:The authors substantially improved the manuscript: they added a comparison with existing work, fixed a few errors, and rephrased most of the unclear sentences. ⇒ We appreciate the constructive suggestions and comments.I would suggest a few minor improvements before publication: incFile(): Based on the Javadoc of the method ("Method implements the logic for filtering file name inclusion") this must be expanded to 'include' rather than 'increase' as it is currently in Table 2. ⇒ This example in Table 2 is removed from the row ("inc ⇒ increase") as the reviewer pointed out."inconsistent identifiers frequently and inevitably occurs" "this issue can be arise" "We then conducted a user study to check the validity of these results. This study asked 16 developers to evaluate the precision and recall of detection results." > "To evaluate the precision and recall of detection results we conducted a user study involving 16 developers." "A naming convention defines a specific way in which names identifiers in programs." > to name? ⇒ All these typos and grammar errors are fixed accordingly.
Reviewer #2's Comments:The authors have properly addressed my remaining comments and suggestions. In particular, they have perf...