Multiobjective Decision-Making Model for Power Scheduling Problem in Smart Homes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Related literature should be cited. Some of them are

A novel hybrid grey wolf optimizer with min-conflict algorithm for power scheduling problem in a smart home

Smart Home Battery for the Multi-Objective Power Scheduling Problem in a Smart Home Using Grey Wolf Optimizer

Optimization methods for power scheduling problems in smart home: Survey

Multi-objective power scheduling problem in smart homes using grey wolf optimiser

etc.

 

2.  Solution (chromosome) representation is missing

3. Selection, Crossover, and mutation operators should be included. You may check the following papers (or papers in comment 1)- 

Routing and Scheduling Optimization for UAV Assisted Delivery System: A Hybrid Approach.

A Novel algorithm for Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem for Smart Cities

Energy-efficient quantum-inspired stochastic Q-HypE algorithm for batch-of-stochastic-tasks on heterogeneous DVFS-enabled processors

Energy-Aware Stochastic Scheduler for Batch of Precedence-constrained Jobs on Heterogeneous Computing System

4.  You may compare the performance of NSGA-II with other multi-objective algorithms. 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the paper is potentially interesting, but the basic features of scientific paper are missing.

The literature review is rather scarce. Reading does not give a complete impression of the existing scientific contribution of the research, which is the basis for the description of your scientific contribution. From this deficiency follows a deficiency in a clear description of your scientific contribution. It is necessary to introduce two additional subchapters and extensively expand the Introduction: the first subchapter is "Literature review", and the second is "Research focus" where it is necessary to clearly state the research hypotheses and objectives of the paper.

The second chapter is also not sufficiently clearly structured. In the description of the methodology, what has been researched so far is not demarcated from what you have researched (done in your paper). No formula is referenced. Equally, in order to better follow the text, it is necessary to introduce a flowchart of the entire process with clear and detailed steps.

The discussion did not provide answers to the questions that the discussion should provide. In it, it is necessary to set a clear comparison of your scientific contribution and the existing scientific contribution, i.e. clearly highlight why your scientific contribution is significant. Equally, it is necessary to refer to the set hypothesis and objectives of the paper.

The conclusion should provide the final words of the author, clear conclusions about the work and should provide directions for future research.

In the spirit of writing a scientific paper, writing in the first person is avoided, but an indefinite form of writing (passive) is used.

Author Response

Please see the attachment, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors significantly improved the paper. I suggest its acceptance for publication.