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 the revised paper. The reviewers think that you have performed the necessary additions and modifications. Your paper now seems sufficiently improved and acceptable for publication.
Best wishes,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Yilun Shang, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
ok
ok
ok
ok
ok
ok
Dear authors,
Thank you for submitting your article. Feedback from the reviewers is now available. We strongly recommend that you address the minor issues raised by the reviewers and resubmit your paper after making the necessary changes.
Best wishes,
.
.
.
According to the revised paper, I have appreciated the deep revision of the contents and the present form of this manuscript. But there is still a little content, which need be revised according to the comment of reviewer in order to meet the requirements of publish. A number of concerns listed as follows:
(1) The conclusion and motivation of the work should be added in a clearer way.
(2) How is the complexity of the proposed method? Please describe in detail.
(3) Correct typological mistakes and mathematical errors
(4) In order to further highlight the introduction, some advised references should be added to the paper for improving the review part and the connection with the literature.
(5) This reviewer suggests the authors exactly mention what is new compared with existing.
According to the response letter, the paper has been revised well according to the previous reviewers, and the current version of the manuscript is acceptable for publication.
According to the response letter, the paper has been revised well according to the previous reviewers, and the current version of the manuscript is acceptable for publication.
According to the response letter, the paper has been revised well according to the previous reviewers, and the current version of the manuscript is acceptable for publication.
According to the response letter, the paper has been revised well according to the previous reviewers, and the current version of the manuscript is acceptable for publication.
Dear authors,
Thank you for the submission. The reviewers’ comments are now available. It is not suggested that your article be published in its current format. We do, however, advise you to revise the paper in light of the reviewers’ comments and concerns before resubmitting it. The followings should also be addressed:
1. The reason for selecting the CMOCSO algorithm among many other intelligent optimization methods for optimal tuning of multi-PID controller is not discussed.
2. Configuration space of CMOCSO algorithm should be detailed. It should be more specific and comprehensive. Representation scheme (encoding type) and fitness function with constraint functions should be clearly provided.
3. How constraints (for decision variables and constraint functions) are handled is not clear.
4. The values for the parameters of the algorithms selected for comparison should be given.
5. 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.
6. Many of the equations are part of the related sentences. Attention is needed for correct sentence formation.
7. Pros and cons of the method should be clarified. What are the limitation(s) methodology(ies) adopted in this work? Please indicate practical advantages, and discuss research limitations.
8. Please include future research directions.
9. Pay special attention to the usage of abbreviations. Spell out the full term at its first mention, indicate its abbreviation in parenthesis and use the abbreviation from then on.
Best wishes,
Authors propose a method for optimizing the parameters of a multi-PID controller using an improved CMOCSO algorithm. This method combines the multi-PID controller simulation model, takes seven
key system performance indicators as the optimization target, and adds the constraints of the index to construct a constrained multi-objective problem.
See below
See below
1. I believe that there already exists a lot of related research work that the author should mention and cite in its introduction section.
2. The author should provide the organization of the article in the introduction section so that the readers should understand the workflow easily.
3. Figures quality need to be enhanced to better understanding.
4. In the abstract section, I would suggest that the author should provide to the point and quantitative advantages of the proposed method.
5. The literature review is poor in this paper. you must review all significant similar works that have been done. Also, review some of the good recent works that have been done in this area and are more similar to your paper.
6. Please highlight your contributions in introduction.
7. Please compare the pros and cons of existing solutions.
8. More equations are necessary to explain the proposed method.
It is a well-structured paper with interesting results. However, it requires further improvements before publication.
See below
See below
(1) In the abstract, the author should highlight the specific problems to be solved in this study at the beginning, and then lead to the solutions. At present, the description is not clear. At the end of the abstract, the author can briefly summarize the research conclusions. The current expression is too redundant and should be deleted appropriately.
(2) In the introduction section, you should give the novelty and the contributions of your works.
(3) Proofread the paper carefully to improve it grammatically.
(4) Very brief literature is presented, try to update it with some latest references.
(5) The theoretical background of the proposed method is adequately detailed in the paper.
(6) The conclusion and motivation of the work should be added in a more clear way.
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.