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.
Authors have provided suitable answers to the comments of the reviewers. The paper is ready to be accepted for publication.
Please revise carefully the paper according to the comments of the reviewers.
[# 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 #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
More recent literature should be included.
The authors should clearly present the novelty and contribution of their algorithm. In my opinion, it seems to be a conventional hybridization of population based and local search methods, which have been addressed adequately in the past.
Benchmark sets are not sufficient. Other existing problem instances should be considered.
Further reference algorithms should be considered.
The algorithm proposed actually failed to match existing ones for some benchmark problem instances, given the very limited sets. Moreover, CPU time is not comparable with papers published years ago. These issues all make its performance questionable.
See below
See below
See below
-Compare computational results with none-parametric statistical test like Friedman test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test etc. as advised in the literature [J. Derrac, S. Garcia, D. Molina, F. Herrera, A practical tutorial on the use of nonparametric statistical tests as a methodology for comparing evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms, Swarm Evol. Comput. 1(1) (2011) 3-18].
-Why tabu search is selected as the main search procedure? More discussions may be useful.
-For mathematical formulation of the problem see [Ozguven et al., Mixed integer goal programming models for the flexible job-shop scheduling problems with separable and non-separable sequence dependent setup times, Applied Mathematical Modelling, Volume 36, Issue 2, February 2012, Pages 846-858]
-There is more recent literature on the problem that need to be considered by replacing older references. See for example
[Huang, X. and Yang, L. (2019), "A hybrid genetic algorithm for multi-objective flexible job shop scheduling problem considering transportation time", International Journal of Intelligent Computing and Cybernetics, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 154-174. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJICC-10-2018-0136]
[Baykasoglu, A., Madenoglu, F.S., Hamzadayi, A., Greedy randomized adaptive search for dynamic flexible job-shop scheduling, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 56, 425-451, 2020].
-Gantt charts are not necessary.
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.