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,
Reviewers have accepted your paper and the manuscript now seems ready for publication.
Best wishes,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Daniel Katz, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comments
no comments
no comments
no comments
-
-
-
Dear authors,
Thank you for the revision. One reviewer did not respond to the invitation for reviewing the revised paper. Although your paper seems to be improved, please make some edits to address the concerns of Reviewer 1 about experimental design.
Best wishes,
No comments
There is something missing in Equation 9 or the "+" is extra
The paper fails to adequately addressing how the Harmony Search (HS) and Black Widow Optimization (BWO) algorithms are combined. While the proposed HSBWO section briefly describes the combination, it lacks sufficient detail and depth.
It is worth mentioning that Algorithm 1 is a modification on the algorithm presented by Khan & Shambour (2023)
no comment
No comment
Dear authors,
Thank you for your submission. Feedback from the reviewers is now available. We encourage you to address the concerns and criticisms of the reviewers and resubmit your article once you have updated it accordingly. When submitting the revised paper it will be better to address the following:
1. The motivation and contribution of the paper should be highlighted. It seems it is a modification of "Khan, E. A., & Shambour, M. K. (2023). An optimized solution for the transportation scheduling of pilgrims in Hajj using harmony search algorithm. Journal of Engineering Research, 496 11(2), 100038., https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JER.2023.100038"; where a significant portion of the paper is taken from it. This deficiency should be eliminated.
2. Abstract does not clearly explain the contribution. The motivation of the paper does not exist. The contribution is not properly explained in an understandable way. The abstract section should be rewritten in order to clearly state the manuscript's main focus. The abstract should give the readers essential details, i.e., including the main contributions, the proposed method, the main problem, the obtained results, the benchmark tests, the comparative methods, etc. Efforts are needed to make the abstract coherent while clearly describing the problem being investigated and findings.
3. Explanation of the equations should be checked. Please use equation numbers for referencing the equations. Do not use "as", "below", “following” “as follows”, etc. Furthermore, appropriate references should be used for relevant equations. They seem they are firstly used in this paper.
4. The paper lacks the running environment, including software and hardware. The analysis and configurations of experiments should be presented in detail for reproducibility. It is convenient for other researchers to redo your experiments and this makes your work easy acceptance. A table with parameter settings for experimental results and analysis should be included in order to clearly describe them.
5. It seems inappropriate to first present the related work and then problem description. In Introduction, These quesetions should already be answerred: What is your central research question? How does your subject relate to your research problem? What methods should you use to analyse your research problem? Why is your research important and why should someone reading the proposal care?
6. The current Introduction section seems simple and misses many contents related to the problem formulation. Please write research gap and the motivation of the study. Evaluate how your study is different from others.
7. Organization of the paper is not correctly written and confusing. There is not section numbers.
8. Encoding type (representation scheme) and fitness function of the hybrid optimization algorithm should be clarified.
9. Pros and cons of the methods should be clarified. What are the limitation(s) methodology(ies) adopted in this work? Please indicate practical advantages, and discuss research limitations.
Best wishes,
This paper proposes a hybrid approach called HSBWO, which combines Harmony Search (HS) and Black Widow Optimization (BWO) algorithms to optimize the scheduling process of transportation programs based on individual preferences.
The motivation for combining HS and BWO to address the pilgrims' accommodation in Muzdalifah is not clearly presented. For example, why were these particular optimization methods chosen? What advantages does combining HS with BWO offer over using just HS alone?
The literature review does not clearly state the research gap this paper aims to address. It only mentions that “While earlier projects have made substantial contributions to enhancing various aspects of mega-event transportation, there is always potential for future progress.”
Other comments:
- The font of some references differs from that of the rest of the paper.
- Line 148: "this" should be capitalized to "This".
The proposed approach is not detailed, particularly in terms of how HS and BWO are combined, which is the main contribution of the paper.
Table 1 requires more explanation, especially regarding how time slots are distributed in the table.
The formulas describing the constraints need further explanation.
The font for the section calculating the cost (lines 241 to 250) should be changed for readability and further explained.
The paper should compare its work with Khan & Shambour (2023), as it appears to be closely related.
Additionally, the significant decrease in costs at 700 iterations requires justification.
1. There are certain grammatical errors which should be corrected. Also, the ambiguity in some sentences should be removed.
2. The literarure review should contain articles related to other appraoches for mega-event transportation and similar meta-heuristic algorithms.
3. The motivation to use the methods proposed in the paper should be clearly stated in the introduction section.
4. The research gap is also not stated clearly.
5. The section 'Designed Transportation Programs' should be re-written with clarity for better understandability.
6. The equation on line 241 seems incomplete, should be rechecked.
1. The paper does not present the algorithm pseudo-code which makes it difficult to understand (Although line 351 states that the pseudo-code algorithm is provided). The flowchart is also very basic.
2. It would be better to assist the section 'Proposed HSWBO Approach' with equations to support and describe the parameters and procedures presented there.
3. The section 'Experimental Results' is ambiguos and the writing style should be improved here.
4. The table number in the table titles should be corrected.
1. The paper fails to provide results from previous research in this area. Extensive experiments should be performed with other previously proposed methods and the comparison should be reported in the paper.
2. The experiments should be expanded to include other settings also, for ex - change in some parameters,etc.
3. The results are not properly justified and explained. The paper should explain why the proposed method works for this problem.
4. The paper should mention the limitations of the other related algorithms and why the proposed method is outperforming them.
4. The authors should clearly state other applications of their proposed method and identify potential extensions.
-
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.