All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thanks for incorporating the experts comments, I'm happy to accept your article.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Marieke Huisman, a PeerJ Computer Science Section Editor covering this Section #]
All the required editing has been done based on the commented provided in the first round, so I am happy to accept the paper
All the required editing has been done based on the commented provided in the first round, so I am happy to accept the paper
All the required editing has been done based on the commented provided in the first round, so I am happy to accept the paper
All the required editing has been done based on the commented provided in the first round, so I am happy to accept the paper
All the comments are incorporated successfully
and article is ready for publish.
All the comments are incorporated successfully
and article is ready for publish.
All the comments are incorporated successfully
and article is ready for publish.
In this article the author proposed a model for broadcasting and hosting of transmissions in dynamic environment by using evolutionary algorithm "Ant Colony Algorithm"
This is an optimal approach that optimizes the routes. This is such a great contribution because evolutionary algorithms are the best algorithms that solve the np hard abd np complete problems.
Dear colleagues,
Your paper needs major improvements as suggested by the experts. The language of the paper is also weak, so please get it professionally proofread.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
An improved integrated path planning algorithm based on ant colony algorithm is proposed to find the optimal path of multimedia transmission for broadcasting and hosting programs in dynamic environment. Firstly, the bidirectional search strategy is improved, probabilistic transition is optimized, early search scope is expanded, and global search capability is enhanced. Then, they use the Wolf's allocation strategy to change the pheromone update rules to enhance the convergence performance of this
method. Finally, author construct a comprehensive evaluation model with the objective of
minimizing the process time for listeners to acquire broadcast programs.
The academic English is very weak, extensive English revision is required, proofreading is required
In the academic English we prefer using the passive voice( third person), trying to avoid (we, they, she, he,....etc)
This is a valuable and interesting idea. However, with the current quality, this article cannot be published.
The experiments design could be explained using pseudocodes or flowchart to make it easy for the reader to understand the module.
More details are required for the second scenario.
This article has many defects, so my suggestion is a minor revision.
1. The abstract must be self-contained and concisely describe the reason for the work,
methodology, results, and conclusions；
2. The content of the abstract should be reduced to 200 words;
3. The research introduction of ant colony algorithm in the citation should be placed
in Section 2.
4. The writer should check the statements in the paper carefully. For example, "And
now, it is mainly applied to the problems such as vehicle transportation scheduling and
path planning. "This statement has little relevance to the research content of the
subsequent content.
5. What does "other competitive method" in Figure 3 specifically refer to?
6. Does Figure 2 and Figure 3 use the same method for comparison? If so, they need
to correspond to each other and check them further;
7. Add more models for comparison in Table 1, such as ABC algorithm;
8. In summary, the "dynamic environment" in the title of the paper is not obvious in
the manuscript, so it is suggested to modify the title
In this study, the author studied the ant colony algorithm to solve the transmission path planning problem of new media broadcasting and hosting programs.
At the same time, the advantages and disadvantages of traditional ant colony algorithm are analyzed, and an improved ant colony algorithm is proposed.
This manuscript may be published in this journal after addressing the following comments;
1. The description of experimental results in the abstract is too thin, so some descriptive data should be added;
2. Highlight the definition and main innovation of the problem studied;
3. Please sort out the article again and summarize 4-5 representative keywords
4. Some descriptions need to be deleted in close connection with the current international situation.“People have been spending more time at home in recent years due to public health events, such as the coronavirus pandemic”；
5. The introduction of the introduction part coincides with the description of the literature review in the second chapter.
6. It is suggested that the author sort out the citations of these two parts again to ensure a certain logic of writing;
7. What has been done in the past research on the optimization of ant colony algorithm? They need to be reasonably summed up;
8. Figure 1 requires more description to specifically clarify the main design ideas of the model;
9. It is suggested to use different colors in Figure 2 to distinguish the optimal path of the three multimedia playback algorithms;
10. There are still some language expression problems in this article, which need to be further modified. Please check the full text and deal with it.
The experimental results are well explained. The experimental results show that the improved algorithm has remarkable improvement in the shortest path planning and the comprehensive evaluation and measurement path planning. But the convergence speed of the algorithm needs to be strengthened. Figure 1 requires more description to specifically clarify the main design ideas of the model. It is suggested to use different colors in Figure 2 to distinguish the optimal path of the three multimedia playback algorithms.
The results among the study participants represent true findings.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.