Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors analyzed the performance of the previously proposed evolutionary algorithm evolving developmental timings (EDT) for decomposable binary problems, binary problems with overlapped linkages, and binary problems that are hard to decompose. During the experiments the authors used the following test problems: the Hierarchical If-And-Only-If function, Hierarchical Trap function, Hierarchically Dependent function, N-K Landscape function, and Multidimensional Knapsack Problem. The performance of the authors’ EDT algorithm was compared with the performance of several evolutionary algorithms: simple genetic algorithm, Chu and Beasley Genetic Algorithm, the extended compact genetic algorithm, and the linkage tree genetic algorithm. The authors thoroughly analyzed the performance of the compared algorithms on the selected test problems. The detailed explanations on why the given algorithm is better than the others for particular problem are provided. The authors also presented the motivation and research goals in the Introduction. The review or related research works is provided in the second section.

The following issues should be addressed:

1. Please review more recent research works on the selected subject. Now, the newest one is from 2015 so there are no works from the recent 5 years included in the review. Aren't there any newer works in that research area?

2. Please improve the English language when it comes to grammar and style.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Ms. Ref. No.: electronics-987699
Title: An Empirical Investigation on the Evolutionary Algorithm Evolving Developmental Timings

Overview and general recommendation:

The manuscript describes an analysis on evolving developmental timings in an evolutionary algorithm. The manuscript is clear and detailed. The methodology is sound. Ultimately, the manuscript will be a good addition to the journal. Only a few minor revisions are suggested (see below). For this reason, I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript after minor revision is carried out.

Minor comments:

1. Please avoid lump sum citations. Review each reference individually or remove redundant citations.

2. In the paragraph before last one in the Introduction (lines 113-119) should state the motivation of the work without arguing the age of a previous publication. Consider remove the two first sentences of this paragraph.

3. The last paragraph in the Introduction it is not necessary, as the manuscript follows a traditional scientific structure.

4. Sections 4.1.1 to 4.1.4 have references in the headings. Please remove these from the section titles and reference them in the section text.

5. Consider putting Table 2 as an Appendix to the article.

6. Figures 7 and 8 are very hard to understand due being too small. The content is unreadable, and the captions do not have margins between them, thus looking as if these are a single paragraph.

7. The last paragraph in the Conclusion section, which depicts the authors work, is not necessary. It is recommended to be removed or rewritten as limitations of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf