Next Article in Journal
Designing a Comprehensive and Flexible Architecture to Improve Energy Efficiency and Decision-Making in Managing Energy Consumption and Production in Panama
Previous Article in Journal
A Fine-Tuning Based Approach for Daily Activity Recognition between Smart Homes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/app13095701
Review Report
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Research on Production Scheduling Technology in Knitting Workshop Based on Improved Genetic Algorithm

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(9), 5701; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13095701
by Lei Sun 1, Weimin Shi 1,*, Junru Wang 1,*, Huimin Mao 1, Jiajia Tu 1,2 and Luojun Wang 1,2
Reviewer 1:
Lotfi Hidri
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(9), 5701; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13095701
Submission received: 24 March 2023 / Revised: 20 April 2023 / Accepted: 29 April 2023 / Published: 5 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Robotics and Automation)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear respected authors,

1.      The main aim of the study has been reflected well in the Abstract section.

2.      The keywords have been selected well according to the content of the study.

3.      The Introduction section content needs to be revised. There are some information and explanations that have not been supported by references. Moreover, the significance of the study should be highlighted.

4.      After defining an Acronym/Abbreviation, it should be used instead of the whole phrase everywhere in the text and there is no need to mention the phrase completely, or define it again. For instance, after defining improved genetic algorithm (IGA) it should be used everywhere, but the whole phrase still has been used. In addition, AGV should be defined first, and then it can be used. Please check whole the text considering these issues.

5.      The literature gap should be highlighted at the end of the Literature review section.

6.      In section 3 it should be mentioned that how the mentioned assumptions have been defined. Which of them are related to the literature, and which of them are newly defined by the authors if there are some for the latter case.

7.      Before Figure 1, the used parameters in this figure should be defined. In addition, in line 159, M has been defined with 1 indices but in Figure 1, the parameter includes 2 indices. Please check and unify them.

8.      The first paragraph of section 4 needs to be referred to related studies among the literature.

9.      Adding the traditional algorithm, and compare it to the algorithm given in Figure 3 can be helpful for the readers to understand the improved algorithm presented by the authors.

10.  It is recommended to explain about the parameter setting in more details.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All the raised comments and suggestions have been corrected. With appreciation to the respected authors, and according to the reviewer's point of view, the manuscript is worth being published in the respected journal.

Back to TopTop