Mathematical Modeling and Simulation of Logistic Growth

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript submitted under the ID applsci-3435424 , entitled "Mathematical Modeling and Simulation of Logistic Growth," presents a comprehensive study on the mathematical modeling and simulation of logistic growth, offering a detailed, step-by-step pipeline for stochastic implementation and parameter tuning. It includes a comparative analysis with the Gillespie algorithm and highlights statistical discrepancies between continuous and discrete logistic growth models. While the study demonstrates robustness and relevance, certain aspects require attention to enhance clarity, rigor, reproducibility, and appeal to the Applied Sciences journal readership.


# Major comments

1 - The abstract is clear but should include a stronger conclusion emphasizing the manuscript’s unique contributions.

2 - Although the manuscript addresses differences between discrete and continuous logistic growth models, it does not explicitly articulate its novel contributions compared to existing literature. Clarifying this aspect will strengthen the paper's impact.

3 - Some figures, such as Figure 6, lack sufficient explanation in the text. Ensure all figures are adequately discussed, emphasizing their relevance to the study.

4 - The manuscript provides a comparison with the Gillespie algorithm, but a more critical evaluation of its advantages and limitations is recommended.

5 - The manuscript employs numerous symbols, some of which are inadequately explained. Include clear definitions for all symbols and ensure consistent usage to improve accessibility and understanding.

6 - Certain explanations, such as the content in Table 1, are overly simplistic. While suitable for textbooks, they may not align with the expectations of a scientific manuscript. Consider expanding on these concepts to add depth.

7 - Is the contento of section 2.3 your propose? To make the title of section 2.3 clearer and explicitly state that its content is the authors' proposed approach, you could suggest a revised title such as "Our Proposed Stochastic Model of Limited Growth". This change ensures that readers immediately understand that this section introduces a novel contribution or methodology developed by the authors.

8 - At the end of section 2.3, revise the text to explicitly clarify whether R, D, and c are treated as stochastic parameters. It is also crucial to provide a concise explanation of how the simulations are conducted, ensuring that readers can clearly understand the process and the role of these parameters in the model. Furthermore, the explanation of the simulations in section 2.4 lacks clarity and should be revised to better articulate the methodology and its implementation. Also, some explanations are presented only in the results section.

9 - The end of section 2.4 contains content that appears to be results rather than methodology. This content is misplaced and should be moved to the appropriate section where results are discussed. Ensure that section 2.4 focuses solely on describing the methodology and simulation setup.

10 - An additional explanation is needed regarding why one dimension of Fig. 3 is expressed as R(D+0.05). Clarifying the rationale behind this formulation would help improve the reader's understanding.
 

# Minor comments

1 - Parts of the first two paragraphs appear to be copied from other sources, though they are properly referenced. Consider rephrasing to enhance originality.

2 - Improve color differentiation in figures like Figure 1(a) to enhance readability.

3 - The equations are not numbered, which may hinder reference within the text. Include equation numbers for clarity.

4 - Footnotes placed within equations might be mistaken for numbering. Consider revising the placement or formatting of these footnotes.

5 - There is inconsistency in the representation of multiplication (e.g., using "×" in some cases and none in others). Standardize this by using a consistent format, such as spacing between mathematical terms.

6 - Terms like "crowding coefficient" and "iteration means" should be more clearly defined to aid non-specialist readers.

7 - In the second paragraph on page 3, revise the format for citing multiple references to ensure consistency.

8 - Some figure captions are excessively long. It would be more appropriate to move the content to the manuscript's discussion section for better clarity and conciseness.


# Conclusion

I recommend the manuscript for publication in Applied Sciences (ISSN 2076-3417) following major revisions to address the issues outlined in this review report. These improvements will significantly enhance the manuscript's clarity, rigor, and overall contribution to the field.

Author Response

Please check the attached PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please read the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please check the attached PDF

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript effectively addresses the concerns raised in the initial review. The authors have provided well-structured responses, clarifications, and enhancements that improve the manuscript’s clarity and scientific rigor. Therefore, I recommend its publication in Applied Sciences (ISSN 2076-3417).