Please revise the draft according to the peer review.
I thought your topic was very interesting and important to our current times. That being said, I’d like to provide some feedback:
Part I: Introduction
I think your paper could use a little more information in the introduction. It isn’t quite clear to me what fields you are coming from. It would be interesting to see the issue framed simply from each point of view to set up the rest of the paper. It would also be nice to have the terms you mention explained (“statistical learning, signal analysis, distributed optimization and compress sensing”). I think if you added these things and made it clear what your essential question(s) is/are, your introduction would better serve your paper.
Part II:
It was difficult for me to tell which discipline was mentioned where (Are they math and computer science?). Big data seems to be your main topic, and you do define it somewhat, but it isn’t until halfway through the paper. It would be helpful if that could come earlier. The first half of this sections is more listing information from sources, while you give arguments in the second half. If you are able to integrate sources and arguments, your paper will become more cohesive.
The writing itself could use a bit more flow, which could be worked on through a couple things. You use a lot of terms specific to the disciplines of which you are writing. If you could provide explanations, even short ones, it would help inform the reader. Also, it might be good to take a second look at your organization of the paper. Did your conclusion get moved to the middle of the paper? It seems to me that the paragraph starting with “In conclusion, the arrival of the big data era has given room and opportunities for the improvement in several scientific disciplines.” would be your conclusion section. The last paragraph in the paper ends in a rather inconclusive way.
Part III: Conclusion
As stated before, the location of your conclusion isn’t obvious. It would be good to give a heading for the conclusion section. I think you have some good synthesis throughout the paper, but it just needs to be gathered and organized in a readable way.
I think your paper has potential, and if you work on the organization and language as well as clarification of the disciplines, you will have a compelling paper.
