Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors show that their simulation results suggest that the AIB-GWMA-t chart is more sensitive for detecting small process mean shifts than the AIB-EWMA-t chart.

The paper doesn't introduce much novelty and it seems just a simple comparison between methods.

There are few points that should have been explained in further details, for example, on page 5, line 195, the authors claim “An algorithm in R has been developed to calculate …..” Can authors provide that algorithm?   

Adding a small discussion section on the potential problems/limits of the proposal would have also been beneficial.

Typos:

Keywords should be in alphabetical order;

Page 3, line 104, 109, 132…: put “where” to the left side;

Page 3, line 126:   rewrite as “the statistic T*_i. is defined by” ;

Page 9, line 240:  The authors state that “The ARL1 values for the AIB-GWMA-t charts decrease as the value of q , d , or r increases. ”  It is good or not? The authors must explain in a better way.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Well done! The paper is almost perfectly written. However, some improvements are possible.

Please introduce research hypotheses, along with research questions, in the paper.

Do not finish a chapter with a figure or table.

Please explain all used notations in the equations. Repeat explanations if necessary.

Why did you chose sample sizes 5 and 10 (page 6)? Such decisions should be elaborated in more details.

Consider uploading Figure 2 in higher resolution.

Author Response

Please see the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Everything is perfect. Thank you!