Quasi-Random Sampling-Enhanced Metaheuristic Algorithms for CAMD-Based Solvent Selection in Octacosanol Extraction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an interesting application of a CAMD framework combined with metaheuristic optimization for solvent selection. However, the novelty of the proposed approach should be better highlighted. In particular, the authors should clearly explain the scientific contribution of integrating Hammersley sequence sampling into EACO and ESA compared with existing CAMD optimization approaches. However, this manuscript suffers from a number of weak points, it should be further improved before considering for publication. Let's elaborate on some of them:
1. The abstract should not be too long, it should be around 250 words and no more than 300 words at most.
2. In Reference [1-4], there are many similarities between the CAMD method proposed by the author and the previous improvement method. Please explain the differences and innovations in detail between your research and theirs in detail.
3. The results of the experiment were good, but they were glossed over in the abstract. It is recommended that the authors include the values of the assessment metrics in the abstract.
4. The validation appears to rely exclusively on computational optimization. The manuscript would be significantly strengthened by including experimental validation or comparison with experimental solvent extraction data from the literature to demonstrate the practical effectiveness of the selected solvents.
5. In Introduction, authors need to demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of what is already in place, rather than generalizing.
6. A sensitivity analysis of the main algorithmic parameters (e.g., population size, cooling schedule, pheromone update parameters, and Hammersley sequence settings) would improve the credibility and reproducibility of the proposed methodology
7. In section 3, the authors should correlate the strategy of the introduced mechanism with the EACO.
8. The discussion about the performance of the algorithmic framework is not deep enough. The authors should add balanced experiments of algorithm exploitation and exploration, and diversity experiments during the iterative process.
9. In the experiment, the author's discussion and analysis are not deep enough and only describe the experimental results. It is important to need the authors to explain what caused the experimental results.
10. In this manuscript, the authors used the EACO. As far as we know, there are many similar algorithms (PSO, DE, WOA etc.). Why EACO algorithm is used to solve this problem?
11. Conclusions should be brief and specific experimental results should be placed in the discussion.
12. Although the author of the manuscript is very proficient in writing, its language really needs to be further improved. Some sentences feel very unprofessional, and the manuscript needs to be deeply modified.
In short, in its current form, the paper is not suitable for acceptance. The paper needs to be modified, by addressing the above-mentioned comments.

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has satisfactorily responded to my questions and carried out targeted revisions. I recommend acceptance.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After carefully examining the revised manuscript and the authors’ responses, I find that the responses are not sufficiently satisfactory. Several important comments raised during the first round of review have not been adequately addressed in a clear and comprehensive manner. In particular, the authors’ responses do not sufficiently clarify or convincingly justify the original scientific contribution of the manuscript. The novelty of the proposed approach, its differences from existing studies, and its added value compared with state-of-the-art methods remain insufficiently demonstrated. Furthermore, some of the responses are limited to general explanations without providing sufficient additional analyses, experimental results, or theoretical justifications to address the concerns raised during the previous review. Consequently, the results presented do not provide sufficient evidence to convincingly support the claimed contributions.

I recommend that the authors substantially strengthen the presentation of the scientific contribution, clearly explain the novelty of the proposed approach compared with previous studies, and provide additional experiments or theoretical analyses to support the main claims of the manuscript. In its current form, I believe that the revisions do not adequately address the major concerns raised in the previous review round.

Author Response

We disagree with the reviewer. We have addressed all comments. Regarding English, we have used both grammerly and co- pilot to correct everything.