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,
Thank you for addressing the reviewer's concerns and criticisms. Your manuscript now seems sufficiently improved and ready for publication.
Best wishes,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Daniel S. Katz, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
This review on opposition-based learning techniques in metaheuristics has significant reference value.
To experimentally demonstrate the capability of OBL strategies to enhance MAs is effective.
Meet the journal standards.
I feel that the authors have responded to all the comments raised by reviewers, and the manuscript is appropriate for publication.
This paper can be accepted now.
This paper can be accepted now.
This paper can be accepted now.
This paper can be accepted now.
Dear authors,
Reviewers have now commented on your article. We do encourage you to address the concerns and criticisms of the reviewers with respect to reporting, experimental design, and validity of the findings and resubmit your article once you have updated it accordingly. Following should also be addressed:
1. All equations should be used with correct equation number. Equations should be used with correct equation number. Please do not use “as follows”, “given as”, etc. Explanation of the equations should be checked. Definitions and boundaries of all variables should be provided. Necessary references should also be given.
2. Many of the equations are part of the related sentences. Attention is needed for correct sentence formation.
3. Please pay special attention on the usage of abbreviations.
4. Reviewer 2 has asked you to provide specific references. You are welcome to add them if you think they are useful and relevant. However, you are under no obligation to include them, and if you do not, it will not affect my decision.
Best wishes,
[# 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 #]
This paper, the authors study comparison analyzes nine distinct variants opposition-based learning (OBL) techniques in metaheuristic optimization field's applications, the experiments were conducted using 12 CEC 2022.benchmark functions,the results show that the current optimum opposition-based learning consistently outperforms the other variants in enhancing the MAs' performance, demonstrating superior convergence speed and solution quality across most of the benchmark functions.The topic is indeed timely and of interest. Some of my concerns regarding this paper are as follows:
1. The literature review should focus on all the optimization algorithm for OBL’s the advantages and disadvantages in MAs. This would help the paper to have a better understanding of the real contributions of the paper.
2. What is the superiority of the authors' work in comparison with those of others work for OBL in metaheuristic optimization field's applications.
3. Authors should provide a table containing the features of each OBLs used to conclude on what is that that make the proposed approach superior.
4. Suggest that there should be a detailed analysis of the results, for example: why OBL in techniques in metaheuristic optimization field's applications can produce better results?
5. The OBL techniques in metaheuristic limitations should be discussed.
6. References lack a high level of journal references.
7. Suggest add discuss the challenges when applying to large-scale problems, especially by discussing how large problems can be tackled without significant problems (in terms of dimensions).
8.The convergence analysis section should be improved with deeper analysis.
The convergence analysis section should be improved with deeper analysis.
Suggest add discuss the challenges when applying to large-scale problems, especially by discussing how large problems can be tackled without significant problems (in terms of dimensions).
No.
1. The abstract part needs to explain the writing motivation and research process of the article more clearly. Authors should provide the ideas, strategies, and methods of the proposed method in detail.
2. In the introduction, the main contributions of your paper are not clear. Please further summarize and clearly demonstrate the main contributions of your paper as several points.
3. In Expriment, it should include a detailed comparison using metrics to provide a comprehensive performance evaluation of the proposed method.
4. In the Conclusion, could you tell me the limitations of the proposed method? How will you solve them? Please add this part to the manuscript.
5. The literature review is poor in this paper. I hope that the authors can add some new references in order to improve the reviews. For example, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-54069-5,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2022.08.020 and https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2024.3516124 and so on.
6. Authors also need to work on Grammar and the use of the English Language.
7. Remove prolonged sentences, write simple sentences that are easy to read.
1. The abstract part needs to explain the writing motivation and research process of the article more clearly. Authors should provide the ideas, strategies, and methods of the proposed method in detail.
2. In the introduction, the main contributions of your paper are not clear. Please further summarize and clearly demonstrate the main contributions of your paper as several points.
3. In Expriment, it should include a detailed comparison using metrics to provide a comprehensive performance evaluation of the proposed method.
4. In the Conclusion, could you tell me the limitations of the proposed method? How will you solve them? Please add this part to the manuscript.
5. The literature review is poor in this paper. I hope that the authors can add some new references in order to improve the reviews. For example, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-54069-5,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2022.08.020 and https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2024.3516124 and so on.
6. Authors also need to work on Grammar and the use of the English Language.
7. Remove prolonged sentences, write simple sentences that are easy to read.
1. The abstract part needs to explain the writing motivation and research process of the article more clearly. Authors should provide the ideas, strategies, and methods of the proposed method in detail.
2. In the introduction, the main contributions of your paper are not clear. Please further summarize and clearly demonstrate the main contributions of your paper as several points.
3. In Expriment, it should include a detailed comparison using metrics to provide a comprehensive performance evaluation of the proposed method.
4. In the Conclusion, could you tell me the limitations of the proposed method? How will you solve them? Please add this part to the manuscript.
5. The literature review is poor in this paper. I hope that the authors can add some new references in order to improve the reviews. For example, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-54069-5,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2022.08.020 and https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2024.3516124 and so on.
6. Authors also need to work on Grammar and the use of the English Language.
7. Remove prolonged sentences, write simple sentences that are easy to read.
The writing in the manuscript still needs to be standardized, such as keyword selection, formula numbering, and so on.
The experimental comparison data is not detailed enough, and it is necessary to provide specific performance data of each algorithm under average conditions, and then provide comparative summary results.
no comment
1.The keywords should be 4-6, there is no need to list every type of reverse learning.
2.Lack of numerical annotation for formulas on page six.
3.This is a great proposal to include in the introduction section the number of articles published in the past 5 years in SCIE on the selected 5 well established MAs to reflect the research popularity of such algorithms.
4.Table 12 only conducted statistics and did not provide actual data, which is different from the maximum mentioned in the abstract, There are deviations in minimum, mean, standard deviation, and convergence curves.
5.The convergence diagram of some functions should be provided in this manuscript.
6.Time complexity analysis can be conducted on multiple OBLs to determine if there are any time differences.
7.The article only tested the 12 functions of CEC2022 and did not use them in the more commonly used CEC2017 function. In addition, the data seems to have not been subjected to Friedman's test. Is the conclusion drawn too directly?
8.The first reference is incorrect. Please check each reference to meet the requirements.
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.