Increasing Output Power of a Microfluidic Fuel Cell Using Fuzzy Modeling and Jellyfish Search Optimization
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the attached PDF.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Lack of clarity and vagueness in detailing the objective and purpose at the beginning of the manuscript affects the quality of the presentation (please see the attached PDF) and skews the perceived logic and quality of the English language used and makes it difficult to rate. Editing is necessary.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the comments. All comments are addressed in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors need to answer the following questions
Title should be clear. Please expand the FC in Title.
· Authors defined the abbreviation in abstract like RSM, without expanding when it appears first in the manuscript.
· There are many group citations throughout the manuscript. Authors need to explain the individual contribution wherever possible.
· Although there are many popular algorithms (TLBO, JAYA, GWO, GA, PSO, DTBO, EBOA and so on) available and authors must explain the reason for selecting JSO.
· The working of Fuzzy model (in section 2.2) can be explained in Flow chart.
· In selection of membership functions authors straightaway selected the gaussian by quoting some information. However, note that the membership functions are to be selected based on the data type (i.e., how output variables behave with input). Therefore, authors need to test all membership functions before concluding gaussian is best.
· Authors not reported the model type either Takagi or Mamdani approach for prediction.
· How the JSO algorithm parameters are optimized.
· You have used only 20 data points for training, does these data points are sufficient for training.
· It is important to define the matlab code regarding interface of MLC and JSO applied for optimization. Add the Matlab code for integrated MLC and JSO.
· References are not according to journal format.
· Authors contribution, funding and other information need to be provided.
· How you have selected the main four factors for experimentation, why other parameters are left out in your experimentation.
· ANOVA table which explains the main factor contribution is missing in the revised manuscript.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the comments. All comments are addressed in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The chemical formula in line 117 is incorrect.
2. Tables in the manuscript should be consistent in format. An example of a mistake is shown in Table 1. In addition, all tables should use three-line table form.
3. In the section of introduction, I think there are other related references in this research field as follows
Journal of Power Sources, 2023, 556: 232452. Applied Energy, 2022, 320:119248.
4. The power density in Figure 4 lacks units, and the power density range should be uniform across all figures for better comparison.
5. The font in Figure 7 is too small and needs to be readjusted.
6. The author should add the verification of the established model.
7. The subscript "best" in equation 2 should not be used in italics.
Can be improved
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the comments. All comments are addressed in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All issues have been addressed in the revised manuscript.
Overall, English is fine. Minor editing may be necessary.
Reviewer 2 Report
I am satisfied with your reply to my comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript can be accepted.
