PONE-D-21-29734Impact of parameter control on the performance of APSO and PSO algorithms for the CSTHTS problem: An improvement in algorithmic structure and resultsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fakhar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 26 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yang Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)”

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"No"

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  

"No competing interests."

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript was evaluated by three reviewers and detailed comments are provided. The team agrees that the topic is relevant and of high contemporary interest, and that this work is basically technically sound. However, there are still some major issues that are needed to be addressed before possible publication. Taking into account these factors, my recommendation is for the paper to be "Major Revision".

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this paper, the authors analyze the impact of parameter control on the performance of APSO and PSO algorithms for the CSTHTS problem. Here, there are some concerns of this reviewer:

1 Introduction can be improved by having four clear and concise subsections on motivation of your research; background and related works; list of key contributions/future trends; and organization of the paper.

2 The novelty and main contributions of this paper should be further summarized and clearly demonstrated. This reviewer suggests the authors exactly mention what is new compared with existing approaches and why the proposed approach is needed to be used instead of the existing methods. Especially, the comparison this paper with authors’ previous works [R1, R2] must be performed to highlight the contributions of this work.

[R1] Fakhar MS, Kashif SAR, Ain NU, Hussain HZ, Rasool A, Sajjad IA. Statistical performances evaluation of APSO and improved APSO for short term hydrothermal scheduling problem. Applied Sciences. 2019;9(12):2440.

[R2] Liaquat S, Fakhar MS, Kashif SAR, Rasool A, Saleem O, Padmanaban S. Performance Analysis of APSO and Firefly Algorithm for Short Term Optimal Scheduling of Multi-Generation Hybrid Energy System. IEEE Access. 2020;8:177549–177569.

3 The authors should introduce more about the references, not only mentioning them.

4 In this study, how to handle the problem of premature convergence in the improved variant of the Accelerated PSO (APSO) algorithm? Use of mutation strategy together with dynamic monitoring mechanism of diversity has been proven as an effective method reported in literature like [doi.org/10.1155/2015/529724]. Please discuss this.

5 The proposed method might be sensitive to the values of its main controlling parameters. How did you determine these optimal parameters?

6 The Conclusions can be improved. This reviewer strongly suggests the authors clearly explain what the significant findings are and why your paper is really important. Some of the most important quantitative results should be reported to better demonstrate the findings of the carried-out work.

7 The nomenclature should be included to improve the readability of this paper.

8 All references, including article titles, should be in a uniform format. Please double-check it.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled,” Impact of parameter control on the performance of APSO and PSO algorithms for the CSTHTS problem: An improvement in algorithmic structure and results” describes a study on parametric sensitivities of evolutionary algorithms which is interesting, however, apparently the study seems very close to the authors earlier works:

Fakhar, M. S., Kashif, S. A. R., Ain, N. U., Hussain, H. Z., Rasool, A., & Sajjad, I. A. (2019). Statistical performances evaluation of APSO and improved APSO for short term hydrothermal scheduling problem. Applied Sciences, 9(12), 2440.

Fakhar, M. S., Liaquat, S., Kashif, S. A. R., Rasool, A., Khizer, M., Iqbal, M. A., ... & Padmanaban, S. (2021). Conventional and metaheuristic optimization algorithms for solving short term hydrothermal scheduling problem: A review. IEEE Access.

Fakhar, M. S., Kashif, S. A. R., Liaquat, S., Rasool, A., Padmanaban, S., Iqbal, M. A., ... & Khan, B. (2021). Implementation of APSO and Improved APSO on Non-Cascaded and Cascaded Short Term Hydrothermal Scheduling. IEEE Access.

Therefore, I would just as below:

1. Please modify the presented work in such a way that would make it exclusive.

2. Alternatively, the present study may be published as an addendum to the above-mentioned works.

3. Please do not consider the comments as a denial of your work, the comments are only suggestions.

Based on all the above comments, I would suggest a major revision and reconsideration of the presented work.

Reviewer #3: The authors presented accelerated particle swarm optimization (APSO) algorithm for solving cascaded hydrothermal scheduling problem. Although the research article has presented valuable contributions but require some minor changes in the manuscript.

1. It is suggested to organize as follows the complete manuscript (1) introduction (2) formulation (3) proposed technique (4) simulation results (5) conclusions.

2. What is the feasibility analysis of all the variants in terms cost calculations of the given problem? It is suggested to mention a justification of variants as mentioned in table 2 and provide the comment on each variant.

3. What is the significance of inertia weight parameters? Is there any influence on the variation of alpha and beta parameters?

4. On what analysis basis the improved PSO is better as compared to other variants of PSO?

5. Check the standard deviation of the proposed techniques

6. Why the hydro generation is zero in table 5 for third hydro plant even the discharge shown in table 4? Is there any technical reason or the calculations mismatch?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr Gouthamkumar Nadakuditi

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review Comments to Authors.docx

Impact of parameter control on the performance of APSO and PSO algorithms for the CSTHTS problem: An improvement in algorithmic structure and results

PONE-D-21-29734R1

Dear Dr. Fakhar,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yang Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors have fully considered my comments on the previous version of the paper. I'm satisfied with the modifications made in the revised version. I think this paper deserves to be published in its current form.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The authors presented accelerated particle swarm optimization (APSO) algorithm for solving cascaded hydrothermal scheduling problem and the revised article in the present form of manuscript is recommended.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr Gouthamkumar Nadakuditi

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review Comments to Authors R1.docx