Identifying Stock Prices Using an Advanced Hybrid ARIMA-Based Model: A Case of Games Catalogs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is novel but more work is required to be published in a reputable journal.  

(a) At introduction, the authors need to redefine the problem and properly highlights their contributions to the literature. 

(b) There is no section on literature reviews. By presuming that the methods and results represent the literature review, the authors created confusion. There is a need for a thorough literature review.

 A few of these papers might be helpful.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2021.07.001 

https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-00019-8

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs7020026 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.05.006  

https://doi.org/10.2478/eb-2020-0008

(d)  Please revisit the ARIMA the equations for consistency and accuracy.

(e) The ARIMA model should include prediction graphs. 

(f) The results should be compared with previous studies and limitations should be spell out. 

(g) Put table 3. in Appendix, it is not relevant in the body of the text.

Reviewer 2 Report

-In introduction there are five objectives of the paper (it is too much). Significance of the research and motivation for research is not clearly stated. Reader is confused, and it is not clear what is punch line of the paper, what is goal, what is significant for science. At the end of the introduction short structure of the paper is missing.

-Paper is written as chapter in book rather than paper for journal. My suggestion is that paper should be more concise.

Some minor comments are:

-Section 2.1. is methodology, it is not literature.

-Line 310: ARIMA instead ARIM

-Line 415: instead chapter put section

-In Table 2: put m or Score of monitoring indicator