Forecasting shipping index using CEEMD-PSO-BiLSTM model

Chengang Li; Xuan Wang; Yongxiang Hu; Ying Yan; Han Jin; Guofei Shang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0280504

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 6, 2022
21 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Qichun Zhang, Editor PONE-D-22-19137Forecasting shipping index using CEEMD and BiLSTM modelPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hu, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please consider all the comments in the revision and a proof reading is recommended for the re-submission. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 05 2022 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, Qichun Zhang, PhD 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 note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 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" 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. 5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 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: No ****** 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 ****** 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: The article presenting a Forecasting shipping index using CEEMD and BiLSTM model. I recommend to proceed this article to publication as it meet the requirements: 1. The manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English. 2. The authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available. 3. The manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions. Reviewer #2: Basically, indexing and planning are key problem in producing and manufacturing. The paper investigated a significant topic which potential impacts. However, the method has not been proposed clearly. In particular, the motivation is weak, why the author use the proposed model structure rather than other existing models. The benefits of the proposed algorithm has not been fully reflected. The result shows the performance of the method however the comparative study is not sufficient. More comparison to the intelligent optimisation methods such as GA, PSO, should be discussed in the revised version. ****** 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 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280504.r001
Revision 1
16 Dec 2022 Author Response Dear Editor: Thank you for the time taken to go through our manuscript! With the help of the reviewer’ comments and suggestions, substantial revisions have been made to the manuscript. Indeed, these comments and suggestions have helped to improve our paper. Please find our detailed responses below. 1. The first reviewer's comments are as follows: The article presenting a Forecasting shipping index using CEEMD and BiLSTM model. I recommend to proceed this article to publication as it meet the requirements:1. The manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English.2. The authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available.3. The manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions. Reply: Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review this article, and thank you for affirming this article. 2. The second reviewer's comments are as follows: Basically, indexing and planning are key problem in producing and manufacturing. The paper investigated a significant topic which potential impacts. However, the method has not been proposed clearly. In particular, the motivation is weak, why the author use the proposed model structure rather than other existing models. The benefits of the proposed algorithm has not been fully reflected. The result shows the performance of the method however the comparative study is not sufficient. More comparison to the intelligent optimisation methods such as GA, PSO, should be discussed in the revised version. Reply: Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to make suggestions for this article. According to your suggestion, we have done the following: (1) Based on the Reviewer's opinion that we lack optimization algorithm, we have learned and added an improved PSO model as the optimization model of this paper. PSO has shown its powerful optimization ability in many fields, and we have used PSO in this model to produce good results. We added sections 2.4 and 3.5 to show how we optimized the CEEMD-BiLSTM model with PSO. (2) We apologize for the lack of motivation in previous editions of the manuscript. We have added lines 70-84 in the Introduction to illustrate the purpose and innovation points of this paper. and sincerely hope that the motivation in our new edition will be stronger. Lines 70 to 84 are as follows: This article adopts the idea of "decomposition, reconstruction and integration" to construct a comprehensive model -- CEEMD-PSO-BiLSTM model, aiming to analyze and predict the internal characteristics and trend of shipping index, grasp the dynamic trend of shipping market, and prevent the major risks that may be brought by shipping market. At the same time, the prediction effect of deep learning in shipping index is explored to fill the gap of neural network in the field of shipping index prediction. The contribution of this article are as follows: (1) We introduce the neural network algorithm system into the shipping market prediction, and through the current better CEEMD method, the original sequence is decomposed, which creates favorable conditions for accurately fitting the nonlinear and high noise characteristics of shipping index, and significantly reduces the difficulty of neural network prediction. (2) We choose BiLSTM model with strong generalization ability in deep learning models as the framework, and combine BiLSTM model with CEEMD model in the field of signal decomposition to build a high-precision combined prediction model based on shipping index, providing a practical and reliable modeling scheme. (3) PSO was introduced to optimize the BiLSTM model, which significantly improved the prediction accuracy of shipping index. （3）We have revised the title and conclusion of this paper. The original title is "Forecasting shipping index using CEEMD and BiLSTM model". The revised title is "Forecasting shipping index using CEEMD-PSO-BiLSTM model". In the conclusion of this paper, we add the prediction effect of CEEMD-PSO-BiLSTM model in six shipping indexes. And updated the conclusion, we think CEEMD-PSO-BiLSTM model has better prediction effect. Thank you again for your careful review of the article, and we would appreciate any suggestions. Sincerely yours Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280504.r002
3 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Qichun Zhang, Editor Forecasting shipping index using CEEMD-PSO-BiLSTM model PONE-D-22-19137R1 Dear Dr. Hu, 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, Qichun Zhang, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: All the concerns have been addressed in the revised manuscript. It is ready for publication as it is. 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: 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: All comments to authors had been considered for all reviewers and the article accepted for publication Reviewer #2: All concerns have been addressed in the revised manuscript. The detail of the proposed algorithm has been explained with discussion. It is ready for publication now. ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280504.r003

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .