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 manuscript can be accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Ok
Ok
Ok
Overall, the authors have addressed all the points requested by the reviewers, and I recommend this paper for publication.
Incorporate the comments of the reviewers.
**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.
Review:
1、 Format specification:
(1) Please check the punctuation marks from lines 219 to 220 and correct the errors to the correct format.
(2) The description from lines 223 to 224 in the article is rather strange. Please check the description and make revisions.
(3) The paragraph format from line 276 to line 301 in the article is not standardized. A single line forming a paragraph may result in the loss of details. Please add relevant descriptions appropriately.
(4) Is the mathematical formulation below line 294 in the article a separate equation? If it is a separate equation, please add the formula number at the end. If it is not an equation, there is no need to make it into a separate paragraph.
2、Unclear formula definition:
The definition of similarity in Equation 4 in the article is not clear. Whether the heuristic values in the pseudo-code are the same as the similarity definitions in Equation 4. If they are the same, please standardize the format. If they are different, please explain the distinctions in detail.
3、Figures and Tables:
(1) Figure 4 is still not clear. Please update it to improve the clarity of the picture so that readers can better see the details in it.
(2) Table 4 does not fully display it.
-
-
-
1. Figure 1 is too general; it does not describe the system in detail
-> Figure 1 already shows the proposed novelty. However, you need to differentiate between which shapes represent processes and which represent data, etc. Furthermore, cross-validation and evaluation are not part of the system/model; they are steps to test your system/model.
2. Figure 2 does not need to be shown, because it does not contain important information
-> I still see figure 2 in the revised version
3. I do not see the use of the big S variable (line 242) in the formula. Where is this variable used for?
-> It would certainly be better if the author could list the number of each formula used. And ensure that each formula used in subsequent discussions is used.
4. How do you have an idea why the heuristic matrix is described as the inverse of the cost matrix? Explain in more detail
Author’s response: Provided in the article.
-> It would be better if you mention on which page, paragraph, and line
5. From this paper, I have not found an explanation of the case that requires "adaptivity". So, "adaptive" optimization problem here, in what context? It can also be explained with an example
->Ok
6. Line 316: O(50x SQR(N) x 100) is an incorrect statement for an asymptotic time complexity (big O). The author needs to learn again how to express an asymptotic time complexity. Also, explain how you get this asymptotic time complexity
->Ok
6. How do you choose certain basic operations to determine the time complexity of your proposed approach? Basic operations (to determine time complexity) should be the most important operations that consume the most time in the algorithm
->Ok
7. Line 325: “The diagram describes the architecture of a hybrid Ant Colony Optimization…” Which diagram?
->Ok
8. Line 325: “The diagram describes the architecture of a hybrid Ant Colony Optimization…” Which diagram?
->Ok
9. I have not been able to grasp the essence of the testing in Table 4. Under what conditions does it describe the dynamics (related to the adaptive optimization problem), and why did you only test for 2 cases? The testing should be more comprehensive
->Ok
10. If you involve many trials, the comparison of total costs should also involve statistical tests, so that it is proven that the mean total cost of the 3 samples tested is indeed significantly different
->Ok
11. Scalability testing should involve many test cases, so that it is more comprehensive
->Ok
12. I have not been able to grasp the essence of the illustrations in figures 8, 9, and 10. What do you want to show? Why does it have to be through a graph illustration? Of course, these 3 images cannot yet represent the ACO-GNN testing comprehensively
->Ok
13. Conclusion: -- 1) The testing conducted by the author is still not comprehensive enough, and there has been no deeper analysis related to the testing conducted (points 9, 10, 11, 12)—
->Ok
**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:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The reviews of the manuscript: Adaptive Route Optimization in Tourism Using Ant Colony Graph Neural Networks with Deep Learning.
1. The analysis of the innovativeness of the method is not clear. In lines 60 to 65 of the introduction, it is mentioned that the method proposed by the author can handle real-time environmental fluctuations and generate optimal route management. Please elaborate in the article on how you define real-time environmental fluctuations and through which modules in your approach you address this difficulty.
2 .The organization and language expression of the literature review need to be further refined. For the literature review section of the article, there is only a simple accumulation of previous studies. It is suggested that the narrative and investigation be carried out in an organized manner according to the chronological order or the update and iteration of research methods. In addition, although the overall logic is clear, the paper contains a lot of language redundancy and repetitive expressions.
3. Figures and Tables:
(1) The analysis of Figures and Tables lacks in-depth explanations. Although Figures 6 to 10 visually present the convergence speed, path complexity, and network structure of each model, the author's interpretation of the charts in the main text is relatively superficial. For example, the reason for the relatively high initial cost of ACO-GNN in Figure 6 is worthy of in-depth exploration and may involve the initialization problem of embedding training.
(2) Moreover, the clarity of the figures in the article is too low, resulting in blurry figures.
(3) For Figure 1 on page 6 of the article, although labeled as a model overview, the structures of each model in the figure are only described in words, which is overly simplistic.
(4) Please add the dimension size of each module in Figure 5 on page 12 to enable readers to have a clearer understanding of your model structure.
4. The format of the article is not standardized. At the beginning of line 242 on page 7 of the article, punctuation marks are used at the beginning of the sentence. Moreover, the punctuation on line 246 is not used properly.
5. The formula formats are not uniform. While the formulations on lines 316 to 317 on page 9 of the article are placed on a separate line, no formula numbers are added. Please unify the format of the formulas involved in the article and center them for easy reading.
The article contains multiple writing issues, such as tense errors and spelling mistakes, which require careful revision.
The structure of the article is chaotic, the paragraph structure is unclear, the pictures are not clear, and the scientific research writing is not rigorous.
-
-
-
1. Figure 1 is too general; it does not describe the system in detail
2. Figure 2 does not need to be shown, because it does not contain important information
3. I do not see the use of the big S variable (line 242) in the formula. Where is this variable used?
4. How do you have an idea why the heuristic matrix is described as the inverse of the cost matrix? Explain in more detail
5. From this paper, I have not found an explanation of the case that requires "adaptivity". So, "adaptive" optimization problem here, in what context? It can also be explained with an example
6. Line 316: O(50x SQR(N) x 100) is an incorrect statement for an asymptotic time complexity (big O). The author needs to learn again how to express an asymptotic time complexity. Also, explain how you get this asymptotic time complexity
7. How do you choose certain basic operations to determine the time complexity of your proposed approach? Basic operations (to determine time complexity) should be the most important operations that consume the most time in the algorithm
8. Line 325: “The diagram describes the architecture of a hybrid Ant Colony Optimization…” Which diagram?
9. I have not been able to grasp the essence of the testing in Table 4. Under what conditions does it describe the dynamics (related to the adaptive optimization problem), and why did you only test for 2 cases? The testing should be more comprehensive
10. If you involve many trials, the comparison of total costs should also involve statistical tests, so that it is proven that the mean total cost of the 3 samples tested is indeed significantly different
11. Scalability testing should involve many test cases, so that it is more comprehensive
12. I have not been able to grasp the essence of the illustrations in figures 8, 9, and 10. What do you want to show? Why does it have to be through a graph illustration? Of course, these 3 images cannot yet represent the ACO-GNN testing comprehensively
13. Conclusion: -- 1) The testing conducted by the author is still not comprehensive enough, and there has been no deeper analysis related to the testing conducted (points 9, 10, 11, 12)-- 2) In addition, there are many confusing formula presentations, such as the variable S suddenly appearing, and not knowing which part this S is reused in, then suddenly the variable embedding_influence(ij) appears, without further explanation -- 3) scientific representation through figures that should describe the proposed approach is not presented properly, these figures cannot describe the proposed approach, -- 4) from the description in the manuscript, both in the sections and in the testing, it does not yet describe that this is an adaptive optimization problem
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.