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.
The manuscript has been revised as per the reviewers' and editor's suggestions. It may be accepted for publication in the current form.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sedat Akleylek, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved. However, one of the reviewers is still concerned about the description of the datasets. Still, the one-dimensional (1-D) and two-dimensional (2-D) electricity consumption data has not been discussed in the methodology. Kindly address this issue and resubmit.
The proposed model used both one-dimensional (1-D) and two-dimensional (2-D) electricity consumption data, to enhance the effectiveness of the theft detection process is very impressive. The paper is clearly written in a good style and includes figures and tables wherever necessary.
The objective and motivation for the research has been very well stated and all the suggestions are incorporated in required sections.
Use of evaluation measures Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) and Binary Cross-Entropy to prove the effectiveness of the proposed method is quite satisfactory. The authors have clearly acknowledged and identified the contributions of their research against previous researchers' work.
The authors adequately evaluated their work, and all claims are clearly articulated and supported by empirical experiments.
The overall work is good, novel and timely.
The article is written according to professional standards.
Still, the one-dimensional (1-D) and two-dimensional (2-D) electricity consumption data has not been discussed in the methodology.
comparison to existing methods is ok....
The manuscript is well-structured
still Extensive comparative analysis is required..
Reviewers found merit in the paper, however, they recommended significant revision. Authors are required to revise the manuscript and address all the reviewers' comments.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
No Comment.
No comment.
No comment.
The paper titled "RNN-BiLSTM-CRF based amalgamated deep learning model for electricity theft detection to secure smart grid", is a novel writing. The proposed model used both one-dimensional (1-D) and two-dimensional (2-D) electricity consumption data, to enhance the effectiveness of the theft detection process is very impressive. The paper is clearly written in a good style and includes figures and tables wherever necessary.
The objective and motivation for the research has been very well stated in the introduction part. But needs clarification on the following:
1. These objective need more clarification
2.The authors describes SMOTE algorithms for data balancing, but regarding the chosen datasets which parameter are chosen and what was the results not mentioned properly. So needs proper clarifications.
3. Use of evaluation measures Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) and Binary Cross-Entropy to prove the effectiveness of the proposed method is quite satisfactory. The authors have clearly acknowledged and identified the contributions of their research against previous researchers' work.
The authors adequately evaluated their work, and all claims are clearly articulated and supported by empirical experiments.
The manuscripts has some typo and grammatical errors like :"RNN-BiLSTM-CRF based amalgamated deep learning model for electricity theft detection to secure smart gird" title has written gird instead of grid.
However, addressing the above comments would improve the quality of the paper. The overall work is good, novel and timely.
I found the subject of study quite fascinating. It is quite striking. Congratulations to the researchers. However, the study needs to be improved in terms of the following issues.
1- There is unnecessary information in the abstract, there is nothing necessary. We expect a scientific manuscript presenting the results of the study, not a report summarizing a study. I think we should see the following information in a sentence in the abstract.
The title spelled wrong-Smart Grid. Authors have written smart gird.
1.1. What was done in this study?
1.2. Why was this study done?
1.3. What results were obtained in this study?
1.4. To what extent is the obtained result successful compared to the equivalent studies?
The abstract section should answer the questions above. Especially the success performance in the last item should be given.
2-In the conclusion section, the summary section should not be repeated, but the results of this study and the success achieved should be summarized in just a few sentences.
3-The success achieved in the study and the reasons why this success was achieved should be explained in detail in a paragraph. Its superiority over similar studies must be demonstrated.
4-The organization and structure of the article should be revised to make the subject more understandable.
5-I think that Result, Discussion and Conclusion sections should exist separately for such an article.
6-Performance criteria that show the success of the work should be emphasized more clearly.
6-Authors are advised to add latest citations.
7-Current references on the subject should be added. The number of references is not small. However, in this type of study, I think there should be much more up-to-date references.
8-Overall, there are still some minor parts that the authors did not explain clearly. Some additional evaluations are expected to be in the manuscript as well. As a result, I am going to suggest Minor revision of the paper in its present form.
1. The title is RNN-BiLSTM-CRF but in the discussion, it is mentioned as CF ??
2. The article is written according to professional standards.
3. Figure 1 and Figure 2 don't give a clear understanding.
1. The article is in the scope of the journal
2. the proposed model leverages both one-dimensional (1-D) and two-dimensional (2-D) electricity
consumption data, But it has not been discussed in the methodology.
3. Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) and Bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory (BiLSTM) architectures combination is not quite novel. What moderations are introduced to enhance the proposed model performance?
1. The baseline methods used the same 3 datasets that the author has used? If not then the authors should compare existing methods evaluated on the same dataset.
2. More detailed experimental analyses are required
1. The manuscript is well structured
2. List the major contributions of your work
3. Extensive comparative analysis is required
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.