An Improved Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for Data Classification

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone.

-  Page 8: the following paragraph is unclear, so please reorganize that:

“When a metaheuristic algorithm enhances a problem with the best solution, the initial solution is usually randomly generated [52]. The optimisation process will end when the optimal solution is near the random guess and fast convergence. The optimisation process will take a lot of time when the optimal solution is far from random guesses, and convergence will be slower.”

- More explanations should be presented regarding figure 5. It is unclear.

- The quality of figure 6 is not acceptable. I would ask you to use the original source of this figure.

-  Please modify the equations numbers. There is two Eq. 5. Also, there is a Chinese sign in equation 5, which should be modified.

-  Methods section determines the results. Kindly focus on three basic elements of the methods section.
a. How the study was designed?
b. How the study was carried out?
c. How the data were analyzed?

-The major defect of this study is the debate or Argument is not clear stated in the introduction session. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the author to enhance your theoretical discussion and arrives your debate or argument.

- It is suggested to add articles entitled “Surono et al. Optimization of Markov Weighted Fuzzy Time Series Forecasting Using Genetic Algorithm (GA) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)” and “Duong et al. PSO based Hybrid PID-FLC Sugeno Control for Excitation System of Large Synchronous Motor” to the literature review.

- Much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the Results, which are not enough.

- More suitable title should be selected for the figure 5 instead of “Sample points generated using Faure distribution.”.

- Please make sure your conclusions' section underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part into more details. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Our response is attached below.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Title

The title of the manuscript specifically describes the topic developed in the research presented.

Abstract

This section proposes the use of an Improved Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for Data Classification, which indicates by the title of the manuscript that the benefits of said algorithm will be shown. I think it is unnecessary to use the renewable energy approach since the purpose of the article is to demonstrate the capacity of this metaheuristic tool. And therefore, the authors should focus on showing the advantages and disadvantages of their improved algorithm.

Introduction

The initial focus of this section is unnecessarily, from line 42 to 46. From line 47 the true focus of this script is shown, which is to show the capabilities of the metaheuristic tool. Therefore, the approach to renewable energies is not the right one. Since the focus of this article is to propose the development of a metaheuristic tool for its application in the optimization of mathematical problems. I believe that the use of the concept of renewable energy should only be approached as a case study.

Sections 2 and 3 should correspond to the section of Materials and Methods.

Materials and Methods

This section is not identified in the manuscript, it is not possible for me to give my observations. Without the proper delimitation of this section it is not possible to observe the materials and methods that support the research described in this manuscript. It is important that the authors of these manuscripts take into account the guidelines of the journal. And they can develop the manuscript according to the Journal's parameters in order to offer appropriate feedback from reviewers.

Results

The information presented in this section is clear and concise. It is properly developed. But it would give greater clarity to the research if the information presented in this manuscript is compared with other similar research. It is important to make a comparison between the capabilities of this metaheuristic tool with others in similar case studies to demonstrate its advantages.

Discussion

This section is not identified in the manuscript, it is not possible for me to give my observations. Due to the lack of this properly delimited section, it is not possible to analyze the findings and their implications for future research or applications in a broader context. It is not possible to visualize without this section the future of other investigations in this direction. It is important that the authors of these manuscripts take into account the guidelines of the journal. And they can develop the manuscript according to the Journal's parameters in order to offer appropriate feedback from reviewers.

Conclusion

In general, the conclusions are correctly described and supported by the information provided in the previous sections.

References

In this manuscript, 57.4% of the references are less than 5 years old, 14.8% are between 6 and 10 years old, and 27.8% are older than 10 years. In addition, for the type of information contained in this manuscript. This section is made up of a considerable number of references adequate to support this manuscript. In addition, the relationship between the number of references and years to demonstrate the current nature of the research reflected in this draft is correct.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Our response is attached below.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has been revised very well, so I would suggest to accept in its present form.