Abstract, title and references Sections • Yes, the aim is clear, which is the design and implement a system that would recommend movies based on user’s preferences • The way of implementing the study is clear, but the key results and the conclusion of the study were not mentioned. • Yes, the title informative and relevant • The references are relevant, recent. Some references were cited but the authors didn’t write it in the references list such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8. Also, references 15 and 16 are wrong

Introduction/ background Section • Yes, the acknowledge is clear • The author didn’t determine the research question clearly, the authors should mention what are the problems of the previous work. • The research question is missed in this study. The authors started with the goal without a specific problem. they should review what has done before and then propose the aim of the study.

Methods section • The subject selection is clear, the authors explained the method and they used a figure to display the method clearly. • Although the authors applied his method on any dataset, they didn’t use standard metrics to evaluate their method. • The authors didn’t mention the size of the training and testing part of the dataset. Therefore, neither validity nor reliability are computed. • The methodology needs to be explained more clearly in some points such as selecting 200 movies, the authors didn’t explain the selection of these movies, is it random or fixed or change always.

Results Section • The results to be rewritten again, it’s not clear enough • Figures are relevant, but they didn’t present clearly • No metrics are used in this method, so no numbered or decimals • The result part is so weak, Authors need to explain in details, they have to write what the results added to the knowledge. • There is no meaningful represent

Discussion and Conclusions Section • There is no clear test implementation of the method, no metric was used. The sample size of the results is so small cannot generalized • No, the conclusion doesn’t meet the research question. It needs to rewritten again. The authors should connect the conclusion with the research question, also, should write the finding of the study. • The authors didn’t mention any conclusion of their study. Also, they need to show the reader the importance of their finding • Yes, the authors wrote the limitations and future work.

Overall • Yes, the method meets the aim that determined in the introduction and abstract. • The study has poor originality, they used kNN algorithm, which is already used in many studies. • The major flaws are: 1- The authors didn’t divide the dataset into training and testing parts, so how they evaluate the study. 2- There are no recent studies. 3- There is no comparison with other studies.
• Yes it’s consistent

Overall statement or summary of the article and its findings in your own words This paper suggested a structure to improve the recommendation system by asking users some questions to provide pre-knowledge for movie ratings, then apply the kNN algorithm to display movies to the targeted user. However, the idea needs to explain clearly, especially the selection of 200 movies (there is no clear explanation of whether these movies are static or dynamic).

There is no specific metric, is it accurate, top-n items.

There is no comparison study with other studies.

I recommend rejecting the paper

Overall strengths of the article and what impact it might have in your field I can’t see strength work, because the novelty is missed here. There is no metrics are used to evaluate the proposed method. There is no comparison with previous studies. The method is weak, it needs to improve.

Specific comments on the weaknesses of the article and what could be done to improve it Major points in the article which need clarification, refinement, reanalysis, rewrites and/or additional information and suggestions for what could be done to improve the article.

1. The originality is poor
2. The references are unsorted, the authors started from reference 16. References 1,2,3, and 4 didn’t cite.
3. The result section wasn’t explained clearly, it should be rewritten entirely.
4. The discussion part, the authors should determine the size of the testing part (should be a reasonable size).
5. There is no connection between the abstract and the conclusion.

6. The authors should use standard metrics to evaluate the method. Also, they should compare their method with other studies. Minor points like figures/tables not being mentioned in the text, a missing reference, typos, and other inconsistencies.

7. Figure 3 was displayed before the citing.