Research on short-term power load forecasting based on VMD and GRU

Haoyue Sun; Zhicheng Yu; Bining Zhang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306566

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 4, 2023
24 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Nasir Ayub, Editor PONE-D-23-36467Research on short-term power load forecasting based on VMD and GRUPLOS ONE Dear Dr. yu, 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 Jan 08 2024 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, Nasir Ayub, Ph.D. 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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. "Funding Information and Financial Disclosure sections do not match: ""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. 4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: "none" 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. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 6. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author yajun liu and xinxin yin. 7. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1,2,3,4,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 and 15 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 8. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 and 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Additional Editor Comments: Dear Author, I am writing to inform you that we have received the reviewers' comments on your submitted article. The feedback suggests the need for revisions, particularly in incorporating and refining the novelty of the content. We kindly request your collaboration in addressing the reviewers' comments and making the necessary modifications to enhance the article's overall quality. Once the revisions are complete, our editorial team will carefully evaluate the changes to determine the article's suitability for publication. Should you have any questions or require further guidance on specific comments, please feel free to reach out. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: 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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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 paper is of poor quality and cannot be published in its current form, and the proposed method is not innovative enough. 1. The quality of the picture is poor, please modify it. 2. Grammar issues are an important issue currently. 3. There are many formatting errors in references. 4. The comparison method is not novel enough and it is difficult to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. 5. Insufficient literature analysis and few references. Reviewer #2: This article requires major revisions. 1. the author needs to revise the manuscript English and made clearly the contributions, as more research is already carried out in this area. 2. The references are not in a correct format even including their citation. 3. perform statistical analysis, log loss. 4. Compare it with BERT Model. 5. Revise the major sections accordingly. 6. extensive English changes requires. 7. correct the shape of the article. it seems a report rather than a research article. ****** 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: Yes: Ch Anwar ul Hassan ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306566.r001
Revision 1
13 Feb 2024 Author Response Reviewer #1: 1. Answer： The paper is of poor quality and cannot be published in its current form, and the proposed method is not innovative enough. Response: Thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have improved the content of the paper, but our previous writing was not comprehensive enough, and we have added some experiments to prove the innovation of our experiments. 2. Answer： The quality of the picture is poor, please modify it. Response: Thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We redrew the model drawing to improve the picture quality, and the specific modifications are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 VCAG model 3 Answer： Grammar issues are an important issue currently. Response: Thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have corrected the grammar errors and also asked my supervisor to help review them. 1. De Giorgi, M.G.; Congedo, P.M.; Malvoni, M. Photovoltaic power forecasting using statistical methods: Impact of weather data.IET Sci. Meas. Technol. 2014, 8, 90–97. 2. Sansa, I.; Boussaada, Z.; Bellaaj, N.M. Solar Radiation Prediction Using a Novel Hybrid Model of ARMA and NARX. Energies 2021, 14, 6920 3. Jiang, Y.; Zheng, L.; Ding, X. Ultra-short-term prediction of photovoltaic output based on an LSTM-ARMA combined model driven by EEMD. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2021, 13, 046103. 4. Answer： There are many formatting errors in references. Response: Thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have made modifications to the references and added some additional ones. 5. Answer： The comparison method is not novel enough and it is difficult to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. Response: Thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. we have modified the comparison method and added several methods for comparison. MAE RMSE R2 LSTM 66.90731364489719 86.26923750627041 0.5411458782684222 GRU 56.66997869155141 76.1676953359481 0.6563376596261866 BERT[22] 52.31486598143588 72.1107546789745 0.6966775446689624 BP[23] 53.50414850471025 74.9748469241702 0.6534276640279069 CNN-LSTM[24] 52.22276598143925 71.0170796348745 0.6890515927027088 CNN-GRU 51.65861588786915 74.65942015095665 0.6423120182754858 VMD-CNN-GRU 11.602667400729006 14.06421909802147 0.9878046585346968 VMD-CNN-AM-GRU 6.0957062480374 8.340781585166098 0.9957108008069071 6. Answer： Insufficient literature analysis and few references. Response: Thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have added additional references and compared our algorithm with the algorithms in the literature. Reviewer #2: This article requires major revisions. 1. Answer：the author needs to revise the manuscript English and made clearly the contributions, as more research is already carried out in this area. Response: Thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have revised some unclear areas in the initial draft and highlighted the innovation of this article. 2. Answer The references are not in a correct format even including their citation. Response: Thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. There were indeed errors in the previous literature. We have modified the reference format and added some new references. 3. Answer: perform statistical analysis, log loss. Response: Thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have added the calculation of losses in the article and provided the losses during the training process. 4. Answer: Compare it with BERT Model. Response: Thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We used the BERT model for prediction and included the scores in the evaluation table. MAE RMSE R2 LSTM 66.90731364489719 86.26923750627041 0.5411458782684222 GRU 56.66997869155141 76.1676953359481 0.6563376596261866 BERT[22] 52.31486598143588 72.1107546789745 0.6966775446689624 BP[23] 53.50414850471025 74.9748469241702 0.6534276640279069 CNN-LSTM[24] 52.22276598143925 71.0170796348745 0.6890515927027088 CNN-GRU 51.65861588786915 74.65942015095665 0.6423120182754858 VMD-CNN-GRU 11.602667400729006 14.06421909802147 0.9878046585346968 VMD-CNN-AM-GRU 6.0957062480374 8.340781585166098 0.9957108008069071 5. Answer: Revise the major sections accordingly. Response: Thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have adjusted the content of some chapters and also modified the content of some chapters. 6. Answer: extensive English changes requires. Response: Thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions.We have corrected the grammar of English and polished it again 7. Answer: correct the shape of the article. it seems a report rather than a research article. Response: Thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have adjusted the chapters and also made some modifications to make the article more like an academic paper Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306566.r002
1 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Nasir Ayub, Editor PONE-D-23-36467R1Research on short-term power load forecasting based on VMD and GRUPLOS ONE Dear Dr. yu, 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 May 16 2024 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, Nasir Ayub, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ******** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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 #3: No ****** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: While the authors have made commendable efforts to address the reviewers' comments, further revisions are necessary to ensure the paper meets rigorous academic writing standards. The flow of the story from problem formulation to the proposed method could be improved. Ensuring clarity, thoroughness in analysis, and adherence to formatting guidelines will enhance the credibility and impact of the research. Additionally, one area of improvement is the use of "we" in some sentences, which may slightly detract from the formality of the writing. Shifting to an "agentless passive" construction can enhance formality. For example, instead of "Firstly, we adopt VMD technology...," the sentence could be revised to "Firstly, VMD technology is adopted...," maintaining a formal and objective tone more typical of academic writing. Furthermore, the comparison method used in previous studies is not well-established, as it is not discussed in the early related work analysis. It appears only in the evaluation section without proper definition or discussion. Providing a clearer explanation and contextualization of the comparison method would strengthen the methodological framework of the research. Further comments regarding comparison figures (e.g., Fig 9, 10, 12) were noted. The combination of multiple results in the same figure could make analysis challenging. Improvements such as using different colors or line styles/transparency may enhance clarity in visual representation. Regarding the evaluation error index results, the presence of long decimal points raises questions about significance. Clarification on the significance of these decimal points in relation to the evaluation metrics would enhance the interpretation of the results. ****** 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 #3: No ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306566.r003
Revision 2
28 Apr 2024 Author Response 1.Answer：Additionally, one area of improvement is the use of "we" in some sentences, which may slightly detract from the formality of the writing. Shifting to an "agentless passive" construction can enhance formality. For example, instead of "Firstly, we adopt VMD technology...," the sentence could be revised to "Firstly, VMD technology is adopted...," maintaining a formal and objective tone more typical of academic writing. Response: Thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have removed some colloquial expressions from the paper, making it more academic. 2.Answer：the comparison method used in previous studies is not well-established, as it is not discussed in the early related work analysis. It appears only in the evaluation section without proper definition or discussion. Providing a clearer explanation and contextualization of the comparison method would strengthen the methodological framework of the research. Response: Thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have added descriptions of relevant methods in the previous work section and compared them, demonstrating that our combination algorithm has more advantages. 3.Answer： Further comments regarding comparison figures (e.g., Fig 9, 10, 12) were noted. The combination of multiple results in the same figure could make analysis challenging. Improvements such as using different colors or line styles/transparency may enhance clarity in visual representation. Response: Thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have made modifications to the table, but the legend for the final result of the model run in this article is incorrect. We have now made the necessary changes, and we have included the comparison results of multiple models in one graph. However, some models have significant differences, which makes the graph not look very clear. I tried changing the color, but still in the current situation, so I have decided to continue using the original image. The final model run in this article is the main image, while other images are used for comparison. 4 Answer： Regarding the evaluation error index results, the presence of long decimal points raises questions about significance. Clarification on the significance of these decimal points in relation to the evaluation metrics would enhance the interpretation of the results. Response: Thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have improved the final scoring result by retaining three decimal places, as the final r2 score had a different third decimal place. In order to make the comparison clearer, we have retained three decimal places. MAE RMSE R2 LSTM 378.162 517.581 0.530 GRU 376.910 511.652 0.562 BERT[22] 377.852 511.728 0.547 BP[23] 378.556 512.364 0.526 CNN-LSTM[24] 358.586 485.351 0.585 CNN-GRU 356.253 477.598 0.599 VMD-CNN-GRU 55.285 75.308 0.993 VMD-CNN-AM-GRU 20.280 23.881 0.998 MAE RMSE R2 LSTM 66.907 86.269 0.541 GRU 56.669 76.167 0.656 BERT[22] 52.314 72.113 0.696 BP[23] 53.504 74.974 0.653 CNN-LSTM[24] 52.227 71.017 0.689 CNN-GRU 51.658 74.659 0.642 VMD-CNN-GRU 11.602 14.064 0.987 VMD-CNN-AM-GRU 6.095 8.340 0.995 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306566.r004
19 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Nasir Ayub, Editor Research on short-term power load forecasting based on VMD and GRU PONE-D-23-36467R2 Dear Dr. yu, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Nasir Ayub, Ph.D. 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 #4: (No Response) Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #6: 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 #4: No Reviewer #5: Yes Reviewer #6: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #5: Yes Reviewer #6: 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 #4: No Reviewer #5: Yes Reviewer #6: 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 #4: No Reviewer #5: Yes Reviewer #6: 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 #4: 1. This paper proposes a novel approach, VCAG, for power load forecasting that integrates Variable Mode Decomposition (VMD), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Attention Mechanism, and Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU). The method aims to overcome limitations in traditional forecasting techniques by extracting valuable time-frequency features from power load data and enhancing the weight of crucial information through an attention mechanism. The experiments conducted demonstrate high accuracy and stability compared to traditional methods. Overall, the proposed approach shows promise for improving power load forecasting. 2. The integration of Variable Mode Decomposition (VMD), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Attention Mechanism, and Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) in the VCAG approach presents an innovative solution to address the challenges in power load forecasting. By decomposing power load data and extracting meaningful time-frequency features, the model enhances the accuracy and stability of forecasting results. The experiments conducted using publicly available datasets validate the effectiveness of the proposed method, highlighting its potential for practical applications in power load forecasting. 3. The paper introduces VCAG, a novel approach for power load forecasting that integrates Variable Mode Decomposition (VMD), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Attention Mechanism, and Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU). This approach aims to overcome the limitations of traditional forecasting techniques by leveraging advanced neural network architectures and feature extraction methods. The experiments conducted using two publicly available datasets demonstrate the superior accuracy and stability of VCAG compared to existing methods. Overall, the proposed approach shows promise for improving the reliability of power load forecasting in real-world scenarios. 4. The proposed VCAG approach for power load forecasting presents a comprehensive solution to address the challenges associated with traditional forecasting methods. By integrating Variable Mode Decomposition (VMD), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Attention Mechanism, and Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU), the model effectively captures temporal and spectral features from power load data, enhancing prediction accuracy and stability. The experimental results validate the superiority of VCAG over conventional techniques, highlighting its potential for practical applications in energy management systems. 5. The paper introduces VCAG, a novel approach for power load forecasting that combines Variable Mode Decomposition (VMD), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Attention Mechanism, and Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU). This approach aims to overcome the limitations of traditional forecasting methods by extracting valuable time-frequency features and incorporating an attention mechanism to prioritize important information. The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of VCAG in achieving high accuracy and stability in power load forecasting, indicating its potential for widespread adoption in energy management systems. Reviewer #5: The manuscript presents a robust and technically sound methodology. The use of Variable Mode Decomposition (VMD) and Gated Recurrent Units (GRU) is well-justified and appropriate for short-term power load forecasting. The authors provide a clear and detailed explanation of the implementation of VMD and GRU, including data processing, model training, and validation processes. The comparative analysis with other forecasting methods demonstrates the superiority of the proposed approach, reinforcing the technical soundness of the manuscript. The data used in the study is relevant and of high quality. The sources of the data are clearly stated, and the processing steps are comprehensively documented. The experimental results are presented clearly with well-organized tables and graphs. The results are reproducible and statistically significant, providing strong evidence to support the conclusions. The conclusions drawn are logically derived from the data and results, aligning well with the research objectives and supporting the study’s claims. The statistical analysis in the manuscript is performed appropriately and rigorously. The authors have used relevant statistical metrics such as RMSE, MAE, and R2 to evaluate the forecasting performance. The choice of these metrics is well-justified and aligns with the study's objectives. The methodology used to calculate these metrics is clearly described, adding to the transparency and reproducibility of the analysis. The manuscript includes thorough validation processes, such as cross-validation, which enhances the robustness of the findings. However, the analysis could be further strengthened by incorporating statistical significance testing to compare the performance of different models more rigorously. Including confidence intervals for the reported metrics would provide a better understanding of the reliability and variability of the results. The manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English. The language is clear and precise, making the content easy to understand. The structure of the manuscript is logical and well-organized, with sections flowing coherently from one to the next. This facilitates the reader’s comprehension of the methodology, results, and conclusions. Technical terms and concepts are well-defined, and the use of tables and graphs enhances the clarity of the presentation. Minor grammatical and typographical errors are minimal, and overall, the manuscript meets the standards of academic writing in English. The manuscript "Research on Short-term Power Load Forecasting Based on VMD and GRU" is technically sound, with data that robustly support the conclusions. The statistical analysis is performed appropriately and rigorously, though it could benefit from the inclusion of statistical significance testing and confidence intervals. The manuscript is well-presented and written in clear, Standard English. With minor enhancements in statistical rigor and a more detailed discussion of limitations and future work, the manuscript would be even stronger and more impactful. Reviewer #6: Thank you for addressing the comments on the previous versions of the draft. The current version looks good to me. ****** 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 #4: No Reviewer #5: Yes: Dr.M.Subbulakshmi Reviewer #6: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306566.r005
Formally Accepted
2 Jul 2024 Acceptance Letter - Nasir Ayub, Editor PONE-D-23-36467R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yu, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Nasir Ayub Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306566.r006

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 .