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 reviewers seem satisfied with the recent changes made by the authors and therefore I can recommend this article for acceptance.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Maurice ter Beek, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
-
-
-
-
-
-
**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.
**Language Note:** When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). – PeerJ Staff
General comment: This paper proposes a novel metaheuristic algorithm inspired by the Sabarimala pilgrimage in India - the Sastha Pilgrimage Optimization (SPO), which solves high-dimensional optimization problems by simulating the collective behavior of pilgrims and leadership mechanisms (Guruswamy selection). The study validates the algorithm's superiority through evaluations on 10 benchmark functions and two real-world datasets. While demonstrating significant innovation, certain methodological details and result analyses require further clarification.
Comment 1:The paper's disorganized formatting makes it difficult to read. Please reformat the entire document. Also, add a proper algorithm flowchart to improve technical understanding.
Comment 2:The computational complexity of the proposed algorithm should be analyzed and expressed in Big-O notation.
Comment 1:The evaluation using only 10 test functions is insufficient to validate the algorithm's optimization performance. It is necessary to incorporate updated CEC benchmark functions. Furthermore, the comparative algorithms do not include state-of-the-art or CEC-winning algorithms. To more accurately assess the proposed algorithm's performance, comparisons should be made against both CEC-winning algorithms and recently proposed optimization methods.
Comment 2:The benchmark function testing lacks documentation of parameter configurations. Furthermore, Table 2 (Benchmark Functions) fails to provide the theoretical optimal values for these benchmark functions. For more rigorous validation, the proposed algorithm should be tested using higher-dimensional benchmark functions (e.g., 1000+ dimensions).
Comment 3:The convergence curves do not include the proposed SPO algorithm. How can the claimed convergence superiority be substantiated without this critical comparison?
Comment 4:The statistical results only present mean values and standard deviations, lacking essential significance tests (e.g., Wilcoxon rank-sum test). Consequently, the claimed performance improvements of SPO cannot be considered statistically significant.
-
The overall structure of this article is complete, its logic is clear, and the descriptions are appropriate, but there are still details that need revision.
Formatting Issues: The paper has some general formatting problems that require a thorough review and correction.
Empty Materials & Methods Section: The "Materials & Methods" chapter is currently empty.
Algorithm Flowchart: Need to include a detailed flowchart for your algorithm. This will visually represent the steps and logic of your proposed method, making it easier for readers to understand.
Algorithm Naming Inconsistency: There's a naming discrepancy for the algorithm. In Figure 1, it's referred to as "SASTHA," but in tables, it's called "SPO." Need to standardize the name and use only one throughout the entire paper to avoid confusion.
Incorrect Image Citations: There are issues with how figures are cited within the main text. Ensure that every figure mentioned in the text correctly references the corresponding image, and that the citations follow your chosen referencing style.
Need to use complete benchmark functions, such as those from the CEC (Congress on Evolutionary Computation) suite. This will provide a robust and standardized evaluation of your algorithm's performance against well-known test cases.
Lack of SPO Innovation Details: The paper does not adequately elaborate on the innovative aspects of SPO. You need to clearly and comprehensively explain what makes your algorithm novel and how it contributes to the existing body of work in your field.
1. The contribution in the "Introduction" Section should be updated.
2. The "Literature Review" Section should include some related work
3. The flowchart of the proposed SPO should be added to the revised manuscript.
4. Please modify the format of Table 3 and others.
5. The performance of the proposed Sastha Pilgrimage Optimization (SPO) algorithm should be evaluated using benchmark functions from CEC2019 or CEC2022, among others, and compared with recent state-of-the-art optimization algorithms.
6. Results should be checked with the Wilcoxon rank sum and Friedman tests, which are used to evaluate the performance of the SPO.
-
-
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.