Referee: 1 Recommendation: Needs Minor Revision Comments: Dear Authors, Your paper reflects your efforts but it needs some revision before publishing to be more clear and accurate. Follows are some of points that can enhance your paper: 1. Just a small point in the Additional Key Words and Phrases, you select two of the words that are not completely fit your paper: visual, textile; please try to choose unique words that reflects your work and recommendation system. 2. The following paragraph written at the end of challenges : The challenges above, as well as many other issues have been discussed in the studied research works, and they are reviewed in the following sections. For instance, visual modeling of fashion items (cf. Section 2.2.2), modeling of fashion outfits (cf. Section 2.1.2), geo-temporal localization (cf.Section 2.2.3), attribute prediction for fashion and leveraging multi-modal data (cf. Section 2.2.2), explainability in fashion recommendation (cf. Section 2.1.4) and learning style (cf. Section 2.2.2). It is not suitable to write it especially that some of the parts are not related to challenges, you should write the structure of the paper at the end of the introduction, so it is not confusing for the reader and they have to scroll all the paper to know the structure. 3. You research papers published between 2014 and 2021, I don’t know when you submit your paper but you should add papers from 2022 because we are at the end of it. 4. In my opinion, there is no need for the Related Surveys section. Authors can write the differences of their survey compared to others in one or two sentences in the introduction to show the motivation of the paper. 5. You have Table 1, but you did not mention about it in the text. Even it is a List of abbreviations, you should mention about it in your text. Also, regarding the abbreviations, you should write the full name of each word when it first appear even it is written in the table, please review and write once the full name for every used abbreviation in the text. Similarly, Table 2, you did not mention about it in the text. 6. In Categorization based on task section, you wrote We discuss these three categories by presenting a broad definition, then u discuss five types, fix this please. 7. You wrote a lot the following sentence: We will show later ,… it is quite noisy because it mentioned a lot. As mentioned before, write the whole structure of the paper in the introduction. Additionally, after each heading you should write dome sentences before you start with a new heading and in the main heading please describe the structure of it, so you will make the paper more organized and clear. 8. The position o figure 1 is not correct, put it near the text that is mentioned inside not 2 pages before. 9. What is the difference between Explanation goal and target; describe it in the specified section. 10. Table 3, please write a brief description about it, and remove the columns that are not used by any of the research such as TF-IDF and Graph embedding. 11. Recommendation models that are trained 12. In Fashion RS relying on user-item interaction data section, when you write about the current research, there is no synchronization, some of them you wrote a whole paragraph while others you wrote a simple sentence, make this section more organized. 13. In some positions you wrote the references without the name of authors such as in particular, the aim of [71] is to …. Page 15. Please write the name of authors in such cases. 14. In Context-aware fashion RS section, why you don’t describe affective context, similar to the relevant other two types. Also, in Table 4, no research related to affective context. 15. For the purpose of this survey, we focus on the two most prominent approaches for fashion RS,(i) visually-aware model-based CF (cf. Section 3.1), and (ii) generative fashion recommendation models (cf. Section 3.2). You write four sections after this paragraph, so write the structure properly. And what is the relation of 3.4 Computer vision and fashion with the prominent approaches for FRS. Moreover, the way of the presentation of section 3 is quite confusion, please rewrite this section in a more good way, Ex. Write a sentence after Visually-aware model-based CF to describe it, write the full name of abbreviation before the abbreviation, describe what is it and then describe the researches, ……… 16. In page 20, remove Deldjoo et al. before the reference number in Generative Fashion Recommendation Models section, and rewrite the points as described in 15. 17. Table 6 is written and used before Table 5, rewrite the captions of the two tables. 18. The aim of the survey is not just a summary but one of the main points is to identify the open research questions (Future Trends) for researchers to work on. As a result, write additional section for this and don’t put it with the conclusion and discuss the points in detail. Good Luck Additional Questions: Is the information in the paper sound, factual, and accurate?: Yes If not, please explain why: Rate how well the ideas are presented (very difficult to understand=1), very easy to understand=5): 4 Rate the overall quality of the writing (very poor=1), (excellent=5): 4 Rate the technical quality (very high=5), (high=4), (moderately high=3), (low=2), (very low=1): 3 Rate the relevance to significant areas of research or practice (very high=5), (high=4), (moderately high=3), (low=2), (very low=1): 3 Rate the general level of interest (very high=5), (high=4), (moderately high=3), (low=2), (very low=1): 3 Does this paper cite and use appropriate references?: Yes If not, what important references are missing?: The number of references are too much compared to the size of the survey Should anything be deleted from or condensed in the paper?: Yes If so, please explain: Section 1.3 Related Surveys, no need for it. Authors can write the differences of their survey compared to others in one or two sentences in the introduction to show the motivation of the paper. Is the treatment of the subject complete?: No If not, what important details/ideas/analyses are missing?: All my suggested points are mentioned in the comments to authors Please help ACM create a more efficient time-to-publication process: Using your best judgment, what amount of copy editing do you think this paper needs?: Light Most ACM journal papers are researcher-oriented. Is this paper of potential interest to developers and engineers?: Maybe Referee: 2 Recommendation: Accept Comments: The paper needs a proofreading pass to correct several small grammatical mistakes are there. For example - Abstract - over the last years ➝ over the last few years - Introduction - In this work we are ➝ In this work, we are - to establish similarity between ➝ to establish similarities between - designer-created outfits, and social media pictures ➝ designer-created outfits and social media pictures - In this section we ➝ In this section, we purchase data, or the insufficient detail ➝ purchase data or the insufficient detail - ‘go together,’ or directly combine several products into an outfit, ➝ ‘go together’ or directly combine several products into an outfit - associated image and text data is ➝ associated image and text data are - product-to-market fit, logistics and advertising ➝ product-to-market fit, logistics, and advertising - geographical influence [ 8], historical events [63] or style dynamics ➝ geographical influence [ 8], historical events [63], or style dynamics Additional Questions: Is the information in the paper sound, factual, and accurate?: Yes If not, please explain why: Rate how well the ideas are presented (very difficult to understand=1), very easy to understand=5): 5 Rate the overall quality of the writing (very poor=1), (excellent=5): 4 Rate the technical quality (very high=5), (high=4), (moderately high=3), (low=2), (very low=1): 4 Rate the relevance to significant areas of research or practice (very high=5), (high=4), (moderately high=3), (low=2), (very low=1): 4 Rate the general level of interest (very high=5), (high=4), (moderately high=3), (low=2), (very low=1): 4 Does this paper cite and use appropriate references?: Yes If not, what important references are missing?: Should anything be deleted from or condensed in the paper?: No If so, please explain: Is the treatment of the subject complete?: Yes If not, what important details/ideas/analyses are missing?: Please help ACM create a more efficient time-to-publication process: Using your best judgment, what amount of copy editing do you think this paper needs?: Light Most ACM journal papers are researcher-oriented. Is this paper of potential interest to developers and engineers?: Yes Referee: 3 Recommendation: Accept Comments: This paper presents a comprehensive overview and detailed evaluation of fashion-related recommendation and classification systems. The paper divides the work into categorization of FRS, algorithms for FRS, and evaluation and data sets. The detail in each category is excellent and provides a detailed look at the ways various work in that category compares against other work building a comprehensive table showing how the various works compare. The one place where this work falls a bit short is to summarize and the recommend what the remaining gaps, by the view of the authors, remain. Given the vast scope, it seems like there is merely the room presented in the introduction. A bit broader discussion of the gaps in approaches and quality would be helpful. Overall, a fine survey, but a bit short on the deeper analysis. Additional Questions: Is the information in the paper sound, factual, and accurate?: Yes If not, please explain why: Rate how well the ideas are presented (very difficult to understand=1), very easy to understand=5): 2 Rate the overall quality of the writing (very poor=1), (excellent=5): 5 Rate the technical quality (very high=5), (high=4), (moderately high=3), (low=2), (very low=1): 4 Rate the relevance to significant areas of research or practice (very high=5), (high=4), (moderately high=3), (low=2), (very low=1): 3 Rate the general level of interest (very high=5), (high=4), (moderately high=3), (low=2), (very low=1): 3 Does this paper cite and use appropriate references?: Yes If not, what important references are missing?: Should anything be deleted from or condensed in the paper?: No If so, please explain: Is the treatment of the subject complete?: Yes If not, what important details/ideas/analyses are missing?: Please help ACM create a more efficient time-to-publication process: Using your best judgment, what amount of copy editing do you think this paper needs?: None Most ACM journal papers are researcher-oriented. Is this paper of potential interest to developers and engineers?: Maybe