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.
Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript to PeerJ journal. On the basis of reviewers suggestions, I submit the "Accept" decision.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Stefan Wagner, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
The paper looks even better now!
Fine - as in earlier versions.
Fine - as in earlier versions.
Thanks for revising your manuscript based on the comments. However, there are still some further issues to be taken into account to improve the quality of writing and presentation. Please go through the comments and provide a response letter.
The paper improved.
It has to be corrected in technical regards.
You misunderstood: punctuation does not just mean a . (full stop) but can also be and much more often (in big formulas such as opt. problems or long enumerations) is: , or ;
Please fully correct this.
Find and add missing blanks in the paper (in technical and other parts.)
We write subject to
A . (full stop) is not a multiplication dot! Use the one we are used to in mathematics.
Consider some more powerful math in the Outlook
It was already done (revision now).
It was already done (revision now).
-
It seems that the authors have addressed all of my comments.
It seems that the authors have addressed all of my comments.
It seems that the authors have addressed all of my comments.
It seems that the authors have addressed all of my comments.
The authors have fully addressed my concerns. I have no further comments at this stage.
The authors have fully addressed my concerns. I have no further comments at this stage.
The authors have fully addressed my concerns. I have no further comments at this stage.
The authors have fully addressed my concerns. I have no further comments at this stage.
Thanks for submitting your work to PeerJ Computer Science. Three referees read your work and all found some merits. However, they raised some concerns about the presentation and validation of the results. Please read through the comments and apply them point by point a long with a detailed response letter.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.
This is a valuable paper.
But it must mature in style and content.
Then it can catch up with top papers in the field,
The view may be a bit more from the viewpoint of gaining mathematical-scientific insights.
That needs the authors to study more on other future mathematical approaches, to discuss them and present an Outlook accordingly. No worries! You can do it.
It is readable but must become "cleaner" and consistent in style.
It is in order.
Even the statistical approach is fine.
"Optimal experimental design" in a scientific sense could be considered a bit more --- also approaches from Statistical and Machine Learning.
Work with 3 befriended experts with strong math background and experience in mathematical text editing.
It is more of an application,
It will be good if the authors discuss more on mathematical foundations and math-scientific alternatives.
The 3 mathematical expert friends will help here.
Consider other approaches and discuss them in your outlook part.
Courage!
You should work hard to make it excellent.
You should get help by some 3 experienced (in formal / style issues) math friend.
You should should also check all formulas very carefully and make the formulas look refreshed.
Have 3 befriended colleagues - in math and paper editing - to help you.
Bring a bit more fresh areas or inspiration, motivation and possible application - see related works on remote sensing, biology, networks, medicine, neuroscience, finance networks and hybrid and regulatory systems (please also see below).
General and specific remarks:
We write max min or better maximize minimize not in italics (if you will have it).
We write subject to and this not in italics.
Add all the missing and correctly chosen punction ( , . ; : ) behind formulas of behind constraints --- or behind lines in lists (if missing there as well).
Do you also use a . (full stop) a multiplication dot (wrong - use the correct math mult.dot) or as a comma? Correct such mistakes.
* is also not a recognized math multiplication dot. Do it as in good journals.
Use (as much as you can) modern math formula and text editing.
Please check and if needed add all the (few) missing punctuation ( , . ; : ) also inside same inside of formulas where punctuation could help the reader / understanding (or is just commonly used).
No . when then an formula follows - you can use a : instead.
it is seen not it's seen
(We do not write Where (which seems typical for MS Word) but where or Here or here ... always with the right and complete use of punctuation around.)
Math symbol's letters (no other characters!) in figures, tables, formulas or text (even tiny) must be in italics. Do this wherever needed.
Do not overuse bold style in tables.
Paragraphs must be on box form - no zig-zagging right edges.
NO FULL UPPER CASE of names in the references (it does not look good) - be consistent with your own correct style.
And so on. Your friends will help you.
Look for a broader view in the Conclusion and Outlook section.
For a more mathematical approach:
Please find and study/compare with works (older and/or newer) on modelling, uncertainty handling, hybrid systems, networks and systems (see above), regime switching, etc., by Erik Kropat, Nicole Radde, Selma (Christina) Belen, Burcu Gurbuz, Robbe Wunschiers, Oznur Yasar, Ayse Ozmen, Fatma Yerlikaya Ozkurt, N. Onder Onak, Betul Kalayci, Alper Cevik, S. Zeynep Alparslan Gok, Semih Kuter, Emel Savku, and Sankar Kumar Roy.
(See works on related broader logistics and humanitarian logistics by Soheyl Khalilpourazari, Erfan Babaee, Eren Ozceylan, Alireza Goli, Reza Lotfi, A. Mirzazadeh, S. Soltanzadeh.)
Please find and check such works and your future potentials by them (outlook part).
Make it lovely.
1- In the abstract section, please add some numerical outcomes and benchmarks for better demonstrating and justifying your achievements.
2- Avoid listing and bundling the references (such as line 85) and instead bring every single reference besides their relevant text and explain each cited reference and their particular contribution(s).
3- The heuristics and meta-heuristics literature is abundant in newly high-quality published papers. Why did you use several old references?
4- The structure of the paper, quality of English writing, acronyms, references, and in general the guidelines of the journal should all be observed and the paper should be double-checked regarding these elements.
For instance,
(a) Look at equations 1 and 2. First, the spaces inserted within them are not okay and are not in harmony. Second, is this equation formatting the typical formatting of the journal?
(b) Why did you sometimes capitalize some words such as “Fitness” (in line 196 for example), and sometimes you did not (in line 220)?
(c) Eq. 3 is not aligned.
(d) In line 175, what research?
(e) Etc.
5- In line 96, you have mentioned “scientific paper.” Avoid such expressions and instead, throughout the paper simply use the “paper” or “study” term.
6- The quality of the figures is low especially the ones like Fig. 2 can not be even seen in terms of their axes.
7- In many parts of the paper (e.g., line 625) you have mentioned AI. In my view, AI is a broad umbrella term and consists of many facets. What areas or aspects do you mean when you mention AI? Justifications should be present for each.
8- In my view, your paper’s main contribution is mostly discussed and compared to that of other heuristics and meta-heuristics approaches. The contribution of this paper should be further elaborated. Besides, what is the difference (superiority) between this work and the existing optimization methods (beyond heuristics and meta-heuristics approaches and especially mathematical and statistical optimization approaches) that explore the related topics? It would be beneficial for the authors to elaborate on the significance of their proposed method within the broader context of optimization and discuss their potential implications for future research and practical applications.
In this regard, you should find papers to justify your proposed optimization approach:
9- Try not to list the figures and tables, especially in the “Experimental results” section. Explain and provide sufficient justifications for each. I think it is better if you also merge or move some of the figures in the appendix. There are too many figures.
10- The mathematical side of the paper is not significant enough to be able to express your novelties. This is very important and I think you should work on this matter significantly.
11- Some parts of the paper look like reports and descriptive manuals rather than scientific contributions and discussions (e.g., lines 283-295, 363-371). I suggest reformulating them in a better way (maybe using flowcharts and algorithms?) and moving unnecessary parts to the appendix.
I would like to give the respected authors a second chance with a major revision and I hope the revision significantly enhances the paper and makes it ready for consideration for publication. My main concern is the eighth and tenth comments.
The paper presents a study on optimizing tourist routes using a genetic algorithm (GA) approach, focusing on factors such as budget, time, distance, and destination preferences. I have some concerns regarding the paper and suggest some improvements below.
1. Clarify the research objectives and contributions at the beginning of the paper to provide a clear roadmap for readers.
2. Provide more context on the significance of optimizing tourist routes and the existing literature in this field.
3. Clearly define the methodology used for developing the GA approach, including the specific parameters and settings employed.
4. Ensure reproducibility of the experimental setup by providing detailed information on the datasets used, including sources and characteristics.
5. Include a discussion on the limitations of the proposed approach and potential areas for future research.
6. Improve the readability of the paper by organizing the content into sections with clear headings and subheadings.
7. Provide a thorough explanation of the rationale behind each modification made to the traditional GA approach.
8. Include a comparison with existing state-of-the-art methods for optimizing tourist routes to validate the superiority of the proposed approach.
9. Ensure consistency in terminology and notation used throughout the paper to avoid confusion.
10. Conduct a thorough proofreading to eliminate grammatical errors and improve the overall clarity of the writing.
11. Incorporate feedback from domain experts or potential end-users to ensure that the proposed optimizations align with practical needs and preferences.
12. Consider discussing the potential ethical implications of using AI-based optimization techniques in tourism planning and management.
.
.
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.