Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 19, 2024
Decision Letter - Sibarama Panigrahi, Editor

PONE-D-24-12727An Ensemble Deep Learning Framework for Energy Demand Forecasting Using Genetic Algorithm-Based Feature SelectionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Siddiqui,

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.

The author have employed stochastic DL models (LSTM, BiLSTM, GRU) and a stochastic method GA. Therefore, it is suggested to repeat the simulations at least 10 times and apply non-parametric statistical tests like Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test on the obtained results to draw decisive conclusions. Otherwise the conclusions might not be reliable.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 20 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,

Sibarama Panigrahi, 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. 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. 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.

4. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

The authors have employed stochastic DL models (LSTM, BiLSTM, GRU) and a stochastic method GA. Therefore, it is suggested to repeat the simulations at least 10 times and apply non-parametric statistical tests like Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test on the obtained results to draw decisive conclusions. Otherwise the conclusions might not be reliable.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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: 1. Check for grammar and puntuation

2. 101 ARIMA is written twice

3. number the equations

4. 181. what does se meams.

5. 221. denine U

6. verify the results in table 2.

7. verify the results in table 4.

Reviewer #2: The following points need to be addressed by the reviewers:

1. Mention the objectives in the abstract.

2. How does GA based feature selection contribute to the performance of the energy demand forecasting model?

3. Elaborate the types of deep learning models that are integrated into the ensemble framework proposed in the paper?

4. All the equations must be numbered and cited in the text.

5. Describe the process of feature selection in details.

6. What are the key challenges addressed by using the proposed method?

7. Discuss the implications and potential applications of the ensemble deep learning framework in real-world energy demand forecasting scenarios.

**********

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: Yes: Kishore Kumar Sahu, School of Computer Science, VSSUT, Burla.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Manoj Kumar Kar

**********

[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.

Revision 1

All changes have been done.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Sibarama Panigrahi, Editor

PONE-D-24-12727R1An Ensemble Deep Learning Framework for Energy Demand Forecasting Using Genetic Algorithm-Based Feature SelectionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Siddiqui,

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: 

  • The authors are suggested to carefully go through each sentence of the manuscript and improve the linguistic quality of the manuscript.
==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 07 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,

Sibarama Panigrahi, PhD

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

The authors are suggested to carefully go through each sentence of the manuscript and improve the linguistic quality of the manuscript.

[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: 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: 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

**********

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: 1. Check for grammar and punctuation YES

2. 101 ARIMA is written twice YES

3. number the equations YES

4. 181. what does se means. YES

5. 221. define U YES

6. verify the results in table 2. YES

7. verify the results in table 4. YES

All the comments have been resolved

Reviewer #2: The manuscript may be considered in its present form as all the queries are now addressed by the authors.

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Kishore Kumar Sahu

Reviewer #2: Yes: Manoj Kumar Kar

**********

[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.

Revision 2

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the editors and reviewers for their thorough examination and insightful feedback on our manuscript.

In response to the reviews, we have thoroughly revised our manuscript, taking into careful consideration every comment and suggestion provided. Revised portions are highlighted in the manuscript in yellow. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer's comments are listed below.

Response to the Editor

Comment: The authors are suggested to carefully go through each sentence of the manuscript and improve the linguistic quality of the manuscript.

Response: In response to the editor's suggestion, we enlisted the help of a native English speaker to thoroughly revise the manuscript. We carefully reviewed each sentence and made several revisions to enhance its linguistic quality. The changes included both minor adjustments and more substantial edits.

First, we focused on punctuation and formatting, ensuring consistency and clarity throughout the text. This involved adding or removing spaces before and after punctuation marks, as well as making necessary adjustments to commas, periods, and other punctuation for improved readability.

Second, we refined the wording of numerous sentences and phrases to improve clarity and correct grammatical errors. For example, we revised sentences to ensure they conveyed the intended meaning more effectively and corrected any awkward phrasing or linguistic inaccuracies.

Additionally, we made structural edits to some parts of the manuscript. This involved reorganizing certain sentences or sections to improve the overall flow and coherence of the text. Furthermore, we removed redundant lines and unnecessary words to streamline the content and eliminate any repetition. This helped to sharpen the focus of the manuscript and enhance its overall readability.

Journal’s Requirements

In compliance with the journal's guidelines, we have thoroughly reviewed the reference list to ensure its completeness and accuracy. As part of this process, we carefully checked for any retracted papers and removed them where necessary. Additionally, we verified the DOI information for all references and have added the DOI to any entries where it was previously missing. All necessary corrections and updates to the references have been made to ensure they meet the required standards and align with the journal's requirements. The references that were corrected are highlighted in yellow and are presented below

[4] G. Franco and A. H. Sanstad, “Climate change and electricity demand in California,” Clim Change, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 139–151, 2008, doi: 10.1007/s10584-007-9364-y.

[5] S. Noureen, S. Atique, V. Roy, and S. Bayne, “Analysis and application of seasonal ARIMA model in Energy Demand Forecasting: A case study of small scale agricultural load,” Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems, vol. 2019-Augus, pp. 521–524, 2019, doi: 10.1109/MWSCAS.2019.8885349.

[11] M. Q. Raza and A. Khosravi, “A review on artificial intelligence based load demand forecasting techniques for smart grid and buildings,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 50, pp. 1352–1372, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.065.

[22] Z. Ullah, F. Al-Turjman, L. Mostarda, and R. Gagliardi, “Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Machine learning in smart cities,” Comput Commun, vol. 154, pp. 313–323, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.comcom.2020.02.069.

[23] W. Xu, H. Peng, X. Zeng, F. Zhou, X. Tian, and X. Peng, “A hybrid modelling method for time series forecasting based on a linear regression model and deep learning,” Applied Intelligence, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 3002–3015, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10489-019-01426-3.

[24] F. Mohammad and Y. C. Kim, “Energy load forecasting model based on deep neural networks for smart grids,” International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 824–834, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s13198-019-00884-9.

[25] T. Ahmad, H. Zhang, and B. Yan, “A review on renewable energy and electricity requirement forecasting models for smart grid and buildings,” Sustain Cities Soc, vol. 55, p. 102052, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102052.

[26] N. Al-Taleb and N. A. Saqib, “Towards a hybrid machine learning model for intelligent cyber threat identification in smart city environments,” Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 1863, 2022. doi: 10.3390/app12041863

[29] A. Kulshrestha, V. Krishnaswamy, and M. Sharma, “Bayesian BILSTM approach for tourism demand forecasting,” Ann Tour Res, vol. 83, p. 102925, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2020.102925.

[39] L. Rice, E. Wong, and J. Z. Kolter, “Overfitting in adversarially robust deep learning,” 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, vol. PartF16814, pp. 8049–8074, 2020.

[40] P. J. Brockwell and R. A. Davis, “Introduction to Time Series and Forecasting - Second Edition,” Springer-Verlag, p. 449, 2002. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-29854-2

[47] R. Leardi, R. Boggia, and M. Terrile, “Genetic algorithms as a strategy for feature selection,” J Chemom, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 267–281, 1992. doi: 10.1002/cem.1180060506

We extend our heartfelt gratitude to the editor and reviewers for their thorough review and insightful comments. Your constructive feedback has been invaluable in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. Thank you for your time and effort in helping us improve our work.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Sibarama Panigrahi, Editor

An Ensemble Deep Learning Framework for Energy Demand Forecasting Using Genetic Algorithm-Based Feature Selection

PONE-D-24-12727R2

Dear Dr. Siddiqui,

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,

Sibarama Panigrahi, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have satisfactorily addressed the suggestions made by the reviewers and improved the linguistic quality further. This resulted in overall quality improvement of the manuscript. I recommend accepting the manuscript in its present form.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Sibarama Panigrahi, Editor

PONE-D-24-12727R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Siddiqui,

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. Sibarama Panigrahi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .