Comparative Study on Exponentially Weighted Moving Average Approaches for the Self-Starting Forecasting
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article deals with a topic of current interest, such as the self-starting methodology. This methodology is widely used in quality control, and in this article it is intended to apply to forecasting with time series, specifically with the use of exponential smoothing models.
However, the article in the way it is worked is weak to publish.
1. The introduction introduces a huge series of disjointed literature and does not describe it. In fact, the objective is far from clear, even after several readings. Everything appears mixed and out of order.
2. The explanation of the work methodology shows 9 patterns, but does not describe or relate their interest, to know why these models and not others. Are there better alternatives?
3. The conclusions drawn from the application to the series used do not provide much information that is relevant.
In my opinion, the article needs to be reworked in order to better assess the contribution.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attached letter.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has improved in those areas that were discussed.
However, the introduction of tables 1 to 9 has meant a setback in the article.
The use of graphs is appropriate and easier to show the comparisons that are intended, and they were already present in the initial version. By introducing all these tables, the reader is lost, among other things due to the lack of comments on them. The comments are very superfluous.
For this reason, I recommend going back to the previous situation, using graphs for these comparisons, and commenting in greater depth on what said graph contributes.
A summary table of the results to be highlighted is a necessity in order to understand the benefits provided by the research.
Regarding question 3, I think there has been an improvement, and now it is easy to raise conlcussions.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewers for the helpful and constructive comments that have served to improve the quality of our manuscript. We believe this revised version addresses the comments that were raised. These revisions are summarized in our point-by-point responses to your itemized comments as below. All of the changes made in the revised manuscript have been typeset in RED font. We hope this revised version can clarify and answer all concerns raised in the review.
1. The article has improved in those areas that were discussed.
Response: We would like to thank you for your careful reading and positive comment.
2. However, the introduction of tables 1 to 9 has meant a setback in the article. The use of graphs is appropriate and easier to show the comparisons that are intended, and they were already present in the initial version. By introducing all these tables, the reader is lost, among other things due to the lack of comments on them. The comments are very superfluous. For this reason, I recommend going back to the previous situation, using graphs for these comparisons, and commenting in greater depth on what said graph contributes. A summary table of the results to be highlighted is a necessity in order to understand the benefits provided by the research.
Response: In Section 3.2 of the revised manuscript, we showed the comparative results with figures, instead of using tables.
3. Regarding question 3, I think there has been an improvement, and now it is easy to raise conclusions.
Response: We would like to thank you for your careful reading and positive comment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I believe that the authors have improved the paper in this revised version, and they have clarified all of the ambiguities that I raised. I do not have any other questions or comments on this paper.
Author Response
I believe that the authors have improved the paper in this revised version, and they have clarified all of the ambiguities that I raised. I do not have any other questions or comments on this paper.
Response: We would like to thank you for your careful reading and positive comment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
