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.
Dear authors,
Both reviewers accepted your revised version of the paper.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sebastian Ventura, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The paper is much better done. You should accept it now.
The paper is much better done. You should accept it now.
The paper is much better done. You should accept it now.
The paper is much better done. You should accept it now.
The authors have met all the requirements. Well-done.
The authors have met all the requirements.Well-done.
The authors have met all the requirements.Well-done.
The authors have met all the requirements.Well-done.
Dear author,
Your paper has been reviewed by two reviewers who asked for major revisions of the paper. Please revise the paper according to comments by reviewers, mark all changes in new version of the paper and provide cover letter with replies to them point to point.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# 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/ #]
Greetings,
The paper, which is called: Adaptive tourism forecasting using hybrid artificial intelligence model: a case study of Xi'an international tourist arrivals, is well written. English is at a good level. All the selections that a paper should have are in this paper. However, since the tables and figures were submitted as an annex to this paper, I cannot evaluate how they would look in the paper. Are they too big, do you need to change columns or rows and so on. The research objectives and problem are well defined. The results and discussion are well explained.
It is necessary to emphasize in the paper the aim and gaps that this research solves. The research problem and question are well defined. The research is well done. The methods used need to be better explained.
In this part, it is necessary to separate the results from the discussion. Make these special paper selections.
In order for the paper to be better, it is necessary to do the following:
First, far more references are needed to have this paper. This is especially the word in the Method selection since this paper does not have a literature review selection. I propose to extend Gray theory with the following papers:
- Using Grey-ARAS Approach to Investigate the Role of Social Media Platforms in Spreading Fake News During the COVID-19 Pandemic
- Progress towards the innovation potential of the European Union member states using gray relational analysis and multidimensional scaling methods
- Development of the MCDM fuzzy LMAW-grey MARCOS model for selection of a dump truck
And other papers. Do the same for each subtitle in this selection. The number of references must be at least over 30. So enrich this with references. When you separate the discussion, it is also necessary to provide references where this was also done and compare it with those studies. Then it is necessary to expand the conclusion with the limitations of this research and give directions for future research.
The authors proposed a novel hybrid model GM-LSTM, based on the advantages of gray models and neural networks to achieve self-adaptive prediction with small samples. To improve the paper quality, I propose the following improvements:
1. Please improve the abstract. Indicate what the results are.
2. I suggest starting a new paragraph from line 48. The sentence starts like this:” The most widely used time series models are the different forms….”
3. In line 66, it is unclear which author used ANN to forecast the number of arrivals from different countries to Hong Kong – Vincent or Li & Cao.
4. I propose to start a new paragraph from line 71.
5. Please, extend the literature background of the paper.
1. It would be nice to present the used sample in the paper.
2.The research motivation for proposing the given model should be better emphasized.
1. Please, explain the obtained results more in-depth. Also, compare the obtained results with similar research studies.
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.