Review Reports
- Shih-Chieh Liao1,*,
- Shih-Chieh Chang1 and
- Tsung-Chi Cheng2
Reviewer 1: Srikanth Madala Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The resolution of the images must be improved. Please check the attached reviewed PDF for my reviewer comments and suggested changes. Thank you!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is not scientific paper but technical report pasted in the form of paper. The literature review is missing to present the problem and to form theoretical background for this study. There are many papers in this field. What is novelty and input in comparison of other studies. Where is no discussion and comparison of results with other studies in this field. The policy implications are necessary and limits of conducted research. Future reasearch guidelines should be clearly formulated.
Author Response
Please see the attachments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
However introduction is extended, references of other similar papers or other models of forecasting are not described. Figure 2-7 are not clearly presented (units and axis). A comparison with similar projects may stress the novelty of this paper. A paragraph which summarizes the differences with similar projects may help to stress the novelty of this approach.
Author Response
Please see the attachments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors did good job and corrected their paper. The revised version of paper can be accepted in current form as authors have taken into account my all comments and revised paper accordingly. The answers are also ok.