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,
I am grateful for your efforts in revising the paper. One of the previous reviewers has not submitted their assessment within the specified timeframe. However, the other two reviewers have indicated that your revised paper is suitable for acceptance in its current form. I am also satisfied with the revised manuscript and believe it is now ready for publication.
Best wishes,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Stefan Wagner, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
ok
ok
ok
NO
NO
NO
NO
Dear authors,
Thank you for the revision. One of the original reviewers did not respond to the invitation for reviewing the revised paper. According to the other three final reviewers, your paper still needs to be revised and we encourage you to address the concerns and criticisms of the reviewers and resubmit your paper once you have updated it accordingly.
Best wishes,
The authors have not sufficiently addressed the previous comments.
1.In the introduction, the main contributions of your paper are still not clear. Please further summarize and clearly demonstrate the main contributions of your paper.
2. The literature review is still poor in this paper. I hope that the authors can add some new or advised references in order to improve the reviews and the connection with the literatures.
The authors have not sufficiently addressed the previous comments.
3. To further explore Comparative results with existing approaches/methods relating to the proposed work.
4.What are the limitations behind this study? This topic should be highlighted somewhere in the text of manuscript.
After reviewing the revised article, I found that it still lacks references to recent publications, particularly from 2024. Additionally, the authors are encouraged to seek the assistance of an English language expert, as the article contains some grammatical and punctuation errors that require attention.
No comment
No comment
No comment
The author has made revisions to some of the comments, but there are still some issues that need to be addressed, as described below.
1. This reviewer suggests the authors exactly mention what is new compared with existing approaches and why the proposed approach is needed to be used instead of the existing methods.
2. For commet 3, the proposed methodology is not still clear and it can be further improved it.
3. The literature review is still poor in this paper. Review some of the advised works that have been further done in this area.
4. The results can be generalized in present form some results are redundant.
The author has made revisions to some of the comments, but there are still some issues that need to be addressed, as described below.
1. This reviewer suggests the authors exactly mention what is new compared with existing approaches and why the proposed approach is needed to be used instead of the existing methods.
2. For commet 3, the proposed methodology is not still clear and it can be further improved it.
3. The literature review is still poor in this paper. Review some of the advised works that have been further done in this area.
4. The results can be generalized in present form some results are redundant.
The author has made revisions to some of the comments, but there are still some issues that need to be addressed, as described below.
1. This reviewer suggests the authors exactly mention what is new compared with existing approaches and why the proposed approach is needed to be used instead of the existing methods.
2. For commet 3, the proposed methodology is not still clear and it can be further improved it.
3. The literature review is still poor in this paper. Review some of the advised works that have been further done in this area.
4. The results can be generalized in present form some results are redundant.
Dear authors,
The reviews for your manuscript are included at the bottom of this letter. We ask that you make changes to your manuscript based on these comments. Before submitting the revised paper, the following should also be addressed:
1. The reason and motivation behind selecting cuckoo and zebra algorithms among many other should be provided. The functioning of these algorithms only shallowly mimics the real behaviors. How these algorithms differ from any of the existing algorithms (or even from the literally hundreds of other metaphor-inspired methods floating around) is not known.
2. Chaotic initializing is not a new method in metaheuristic optimization. It is not appropriate to present it as if it is novel and being used for the first time in this paper. Related literature should be deeply explored.
3. Configuration space of cuckoo and zebra algorithms for the focused problem should be detailed. It should be more specific and comprehensive. Representation scheme (encoding type) and fitness function with constraint functions should be clearly provided.
4. How constraints (for decision variables and constraint functions) are handled is not clear.
5. There is not a clear categorization of related work. Introduction section seems broad, voluminous, and heterogeneous Authoritative synthesis assessing the current state-of-the-art is absent. You should focus on the main topic of the study and present a literature review in tabular form to make it easy to identify research gaps and innovations.
6. Space character should be correctly used.
7. Equations should be used with correct equation number. Please do not use “as follows”, “given as”, etc. Explanation of the equations should also be checked. All variables should be written in italic as in the equations. Their definitions and boundaries should be defined. Necessary references should be provided.
8. Many of the equations are part of the related sentences. Attention is needed for correct sentence formation.
9. Please include future research directions.
Best wishes,
(1) The novel of this paper is clearly inadequate. The theoretical background of the proposed method is adequately detailed in the paper.
(2) More statistical methods are recommended to analyze the experimental results
(3) How is the complexity of the proposed method? Please describe in detail.
(4) The parameters in expressions are given and explained.
(5) In the introduction, the authors should clearly indicate the contributions and innovations of this paper.
(6) The authors should explain why their proposed method are effective.
(7) There are some grammatical mistakes and typo errors. please proof read from native speaker.
As above
As above
No comment
No comment
No comment
Here are several comments and suggestions to authors to improve the quality of the article:
1. Abstract
• The authors should consider rephrasing the first sentence to better capture the reader's attention by directly stating the challenge with LSTM networks and arbitrage spread forecasting.
• The abstract mentions the improvement in various error metrics. Still, it would be helpful to include a brief statement on how these improvements impact practical applications, such as financial decision-making or trading strategies.
2. Introduction
• The literature review could be enhanced by including more recent studies that align with the topic. Highlighting gaps in existing research more explicitly would strengthen the motivation for your study.
• The motivation behind combining Cuckoo and Zebra algorithms could be elaborated further. Why were these two algorithms chosen over others? A brief discussion on their complementary strengths would be useful.
3. Methodology
• Consider simplifying the language for readers who may not be as familiar with these algorithms.
• It will be beneficial to briefly explain each step in the pseudo-code, especially for readers who may not be as technically proficient.
4. Results and Discussion
• The results section does a good job comparing the proposed model with others. However, it could be enhanced by discussing the practical implications of these results. For instance, how do the improved metrics translate into better performance in real-world arbitrage scenarios?
• The discussion could delve deeper into why the ICS-LSTM model performs better. Is it due to better parameter optimization, the nature of the data, or specific advantages of the algorithms used? Providing more insight here would be valuable.
5. Conclusion
• The conclusion effectively summarizes the contributions, but it could be more concise. Emphasize the key findings and their significance in a more direct manner.
• Although the paper mentions the effectiveness of the proposed model, suggesting specific areas for future research would make the conclusion more robust. Consider proposing the exploration of different datasets, integration with other algorithms, or real-time application in financial markets.
6. Language and Grammar
• Ensure consistent use of terminology throughout the paper. For example, terms like "ICS-LSTM" and "ICS algorithm" should be used uniformly.
• Some sentences are complex and could be simplified for better readability. Consider revising sentences with multiple clauses or technical jargon to make them more accessible.
• Maintain a formal and professional tone throughout the paper. Avoid colloquial expressions and ensure that the language is precise.
7. References
• Ensure that all key statements are properly supported by citations. In some cases, additional references to recent studies could strengthen the arguments.
• Ensure that the references are formatted according to the journal’s guidelines. Consistency in reference style is crucial.
The overall presentation of the manuscript is clear, and the use of professional English is standard. The literature cited is sufficiently comprehensive. However, there are a few areas that require improvement:
1）In the introduction, provide more coverage on the applications of cuckoo and zebra algorithms to better elucidate the significance of the research and the knowledge gap it addresses.
2） It is recommended to further refine the abstract to more concisely summarize the core content and main findings of the study.
3） The clarity of the text in the figures needs to be enhanced.
The study focuses on forecasting arbitrage spreads in the futures market using the integrated Cuckoo and Zebra Algorithms-optimized LSTM (ICS-LSTM) model. Technically, the research design is rigorous, and the method of optimizing hyperparameters with the ICS algorithm in the LSTM network is justified. There are issues that need to be addressed:
1） Elaborate on the data collection and preprocessing methods.
2） Clarify the criteria for determining the stability of optimal fitness values.
The analysis of the results is appropriately linked to the initial research questions. The authors are advised to further emphasize the practical application value of the study in the conclusion section, and to discuss the limitations of the research as well as potential directions for future studies.
The article presents an innovative approach but requires optimization of the logical presentation.
It is recommended to provide a detailed explanation of the theoretical basis for how the Cuckoo and Zebra optimization algorithms are applicable to the optimization of LSTM networks. This will help readers better understand the background and motivation behind the research.
The research work reported is interesting in the community. It is a well-structured paper with interesting results. Some suggestions are listed below to improve the manuscript's quality (major revision):
1. The abstract should be improved. Your point is your own work that should be further highlighted. The four elements of the abstract include research objectives, research methods, research results, and conclusions. These elements together constitute the core content of the abstract, ensuring that readers can quickly understand the main content and conclusions.
2. The motivations of manuscript should be further highlighted in the manuscript, e.g., what problems did the previous works exist? How to solve these problems? The authors may consider analyzing the problems of the previous works and how to address these problems with the proposed method.
3. Authors should provide the control ideas, strategies, and methods in detail.
4. In the results, authors only give the simulation experiment results. There is a lack of comparison with other methods in here, so it is difficult to prove that your method is the best method. Therefore, this reviewer suggests the authors exactly mention what is new compared with existing approaches and why the proposed approach is needed to be used instead of the existing methods.
5. In the conclusion, the conclusion and motivation of the work should be added in a clearer way. Could you tell me the limitations of the proposed method? How will you solve them? Please add this part to the manuscript.
As above
As above
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.