Forecasting monthly residential natural gas demand in two cities of Turkey using just-in-time-learning modeling

Burak Alakent; Erkan Isikli; Cigdem Kadaifci; Tonguc S. Taspinar

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0325538

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 20, 2025
20 Feb 2025 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325538.r001
Decision Letter - Justyna Żywiołek, Editor Dear Dr. Isikli, 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 03 2025 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. 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, Justyna Żywiołek 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, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.pl 3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [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? Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: 1- Does the paper address the challenges of implementing JITL-GPR in real-world forecasting scenarios? 2- Does the proposed JITL-GPR method provide improved forecasting accuracy compared to traditional models such as SARIMA and ETS? 3- To what extent do external factors (e.g., temperature, gas price, and number of subscribers) influence forecasting accuracy? 4- Why are monthly forecasts less accurate compared to daily or yearly predictions? 5- Can the JITL-GPR method be generalized to other cities or countries that rely on imported natural gas? 6- Most of the figures are not clear, please. ****** 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 ******** [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.0325538.r002
Revision 1
9 Apr 2025 Author Response In light of your recommendations, several sentences have been incorporated into the conclusion section, and Table 6 has been revised. The proposed approach has also been applied to an openly accessible dataset to illustrate its efficacy. The findings have been disseminated exclusively to you, with the understanding that including them in the manuscript would result in an excessive accumulation of information. The images contained in the initial draft have been substituted with their high-resolution versions. For a more detailed overview of the changes made to the manuscript, please refer to the "Response to Reviewers" section. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-09289_Response-to-Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325538.r003
Decision Letter - Justyna Żywiołek, Editor Dear Dr. Isikli, 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: <h3 data-end="240" data-start="211">Changes that were made:</h3> In the "Response to Reviewers" section, they addressed specific reviewer comments: The conclusion section was revised , including new sentences that discuss limitations of applying the JITL-GPR method in practice. Table 6 was updated , now including a comparison between the proposed JITL-GPR method and the TBATS model. All figures were replaced with high-resolution versions The authors justified their decision not to include exogenous variables (e.g., temperature, gas price, number of subscribers), stating that such data are difficult to forecast reliably at a monthly horizon and would introduce unnecessary uncertainty The conclusions were expanded , for example with the sentence: "Despite the fact that the proposed approach is applicable to any monthly NGD data comprising 50 to 200 observations, it may encounter certain challenges when implemented in real-world forecasting" The JITL-GPR method was applied to an additional publicly available dataset (Turkey, 2010–2020), but the results were not included in the manuscript —they were shared only with the reviewers to avoid "excessive accumulation of information" ******** <h3 data-end="1661" data-start="1619">What was not changed or omitted:</h3> The authors did not include the results for the additional dataset in the manuscript , explaining it would make the paper overly long. They did not implement automated selection of similar months** for local model training, though they acknowledged it as a promising future direction to mitigate "selection bias". Please submit your revised manuscript by May 25 2025 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. 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 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, Justyna Żywiołek 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: Changes that were made: In the "Response to Reviewers" section, they addressed specific reviewer comments: The conclusion section was revised, including new sentences that discuss limitations of applying the JITL-GPR method in practice. Table 6 was updated, now including a comparison between the proposed JITL-GPR method and the TBATS model. All figures were replaced with high-resolution versions. The authors justified their decision not to include exogenous variables (e.g., temperature, gas price, number of subscribers), stating that such data are difficult to forecast reliably at a monthly horizon and would introduce unnecessary uncertainty. The conclusions were expanded, for example with the sentence: "Despite the fact that the proposed approach is applicable to any monthly NGD data comprising 50 to 200 observations, it may encounter certain challenges when implemented in real-world forecasting". The JITL-GPR method was applied to an additional publicly available dataset (Turkey, 2010–2020), but the results were not included in the manuscript—they were shared only with the reviewers to avoid "excessive accumulation of information". What was not changed or omitted: The authors did not include the results for the additional dataset in the manuscript, explaining it would make the paper overly long. They did not implement automated selection of similar months for local model training, though they acknowledged it as a promising future direction to mitigate "selection bias". [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325538.r004
Revision 2
16 Apr 2025 Author Response In light of the recommendations provided by the reviewer, several sentences have been incorporated into the conclusion section, and Table 6 has been revised. The proposed approach has also been applied to an openly accessible dataset to illustrate its efficacy. The findings have been disseminated exclusively to the reviewer and the editor, with the understanding that including them in the manuscript would result in an excessive accumulation of information. The images contained in the initial draft have been substituted with their high-resolution versions. For a more detailed overview of the changes made to the manuscript, please refer to the "Response to Reviewers" section. The full dataset, provided by SOCAR Türkiye, is not publicly available due to confidentiality restrictions. However, in accordance with your publication standards, the company has kindly consented to share a partial dataset of actual natural gas consumption for both cities considered in our study. This data can be accessed at https://github.com/Balakent/NGD-in-Two-Cities. Additionally, the figures presented in the manuscript also provide a clear representation of the data, and readers can refer to these for a comprehensive understanding of the results. In light of the recommendations provided by the academic editor, a new section entitled “Application of JITLGPR on an additional dataset of NGD in Turkey” was incorporated into the manuscript. Two paragraphs were added to the manuscript to explain why selection bias is not a problem. A thorough explanation regarding this concern can be found in the "Response to Reviewers" document. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-09289_Response-to-Reviewers-v2.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325538.r005
Decision Letter - Justyna Żywiołek, Editor Forecasting Monthly Residential Natural Gas Demand in Two Cities of Turkey Using Just-In-Time-Learning Modeling PONE-D-25-09289R2 Dear Dr. Isikli, 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, Justyna Żywiołek Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325538.r006
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Justyna Żywiołek, Editor PONE-D-25-09289R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Isikli, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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. Justyna Żywiołek Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325538.r007

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 .