Structured PREreview of E-SQL: Direct Schema Linking via Question Enrichment in Text-to-SQL

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The paper explains the goal well in the introduction. It shows the problem with current BI tools and says the aim is to build SiriusBI, an LLM-powered system to make queries and analysis easier.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

The methods are mostly fine and support the goals of the paper. They compare SiriusBI with other models and run tests on datasets, which gives useful results. Still, more real-world BI testing, like large data systems and governance, would make it stronger.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

The conclusions mostly match the data they show. The system seems to work better than other models based on their tests. But they don’t cover all real-world challenges like large-scale data, costs, or security, so the conclusions feel a bit stronger than the data supports.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Somewhat appropriate and clear

The charts and tables show the results in a clear way, and it’s easy to follow the main findings. Still, the visuals are more academic and could be stronger if they showed large-scale BI use cases or real dashboards.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Somewhat clearly

The authors explain their results in a clear way and also mention possible next steps for improving the system. But the discussion could go deeper, especially about how the tool would work in real business settings with larger data and governance needs.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Somewhat likely

The paper adds value by showing how LLMs can be built into BI systems and makes the process more practical. It’s a good step forward, but it feels more like applied work than a major academic advancement.

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

The language is clear overall. A bit more polishing could help, but it doesn’t stop readers from understanding the ideas.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

I would recommend this paper because it covers an important topic and shows useful results. But it still needs improvements in areas like large-scale testing, governance, and cost analysis to make it more complete.

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

The paper is good overall and covers an important topic. With a few improvements in areas like scalability and governance, it will be ready for a wider audience.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.