PONE-D-25-27253Optimization of machine tool processing scheduling based on differential evolution algorithmPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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 Jul 20 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.

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,

Syed Hamid Hussain Madni

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 ensure that you refer to Figure 1, 2 and 4 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

[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: No

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: 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: 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) It would be beneficial to separate the introduction section from the related work. Additionally, critically analyze individual related papers that are closely aligned with your proposed method. Highlight their strengths and weaknesses, particularly in addressing the specific problem, to clearly demonstrate how the research gap was identified.

2) Revise the methodology section by including a block diagram or flowchart that clearly illustrates the DE algorithm and highlights the hybrid components constituting your main contribution. Keep the description of the standard DE algorithm concise, focusing more on your proposed modifications.

3) Subsection 3.4, which discusses the parameter settings of the DE algorithm, should be moved under the "Experiments and Results" section. Clearly describe the experimental platform and the corresponding parameter configurations.

4) Present the experimental results in tabular form, including the evaluation metrics used. Supplement the tables with appropriate statistical visualizations and provide a thorough discussion of the results.

5) Clearly elaborate on the adaptation of the DE algorithm to discrete scheduling tasks through custom encoding and decoding schemes, emphasizing this as a key contribution of your work.

6) It would strengthen the practical relevance of your proposed method if it were validated using a real-world industrial dataset. Additionally, focus on conducting a deeper analysis of the experimental results.

7) The multiple objectives mentioned in the manuscript appear to be unnecessary, as the main focus of this work is on profit maximization as a single objective.

8) Simplify the assumptions made in relation to the main objective. The model currently depends on simplifications such as fixed switching times, idealized precedence constraints, and homogeneous job sizes, which may limit its applicability in complex manufacturing environments.

9) To better demonstrate the superiority of your proposed method, consider benchmarking your DE-based approach against modern metaheuristics such as NSGA-II, MOEA/D, and ACD.

10) Further discussion on the empirical performance of the proposed method in handling complex scheduling instances, particularly in the context of manufacturing, would significantly strengthen your paper.

Reviewer #2: 1. HEADING 2 have no content, need to add at least a paragraph under this heading

2. Heading 2.2 , the adjustment of variables’ was done on what basis, either add explanation or include citation

3. Heading 3 also have no content, just like heading 2

4. In figure 2 the “feedback loop” must come after the last block “G=G+1

5. FOR THE HEADING “3.4 Parameters setting of DE algorithm” reference/citation is missing for their value selection

6. Figure 3 must be more explanatory, should show the local maxima and minima in the fig

7. Lines 395 and 398 , what examples? Are they examples or your contribution? If it’s your then rephrase the sentence.

8. Again at line 404 and next the values of parameters have been selected on what criteria? Kindly specify

9. Figure 4 must be cited in the text and add some explanations about it.

10. Table 1 better to add some discussion on table findings

11. Heading 4.1 again the reference or explanation is required to added for parameters setting

12. Better to add those points, discuss about the achieved tasks, mentioned in gaps section

13. Must add the recent references, the latest reference, added is from year 2021

**********

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: Ayuba John

Reviewer #2: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers Comments PONE-D-25-27253.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: REVIEW.docx

Optimization of machine tool processing scheduling based on differential evolution algorithm

PONE-D-25-27253R1

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

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,

Syed Hamid Hussain Madni

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewer #1:

Reviewer #2:

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: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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) It is quite impressive that the authors have substantially addressed the issues raised in the reviewers’ comments on the original manuscript. Their revisions have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript, bringing it up to the standard required by this reputable journal. I therefore confidently recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication.

2) You might find these papers useful, and citing them could strengthen your manuscript:

http://doi.org/10.1049/wss2.12100

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswa.2024.200381

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswa.2024.200442

Reviewer #2: author has adressed the previously mentioned comments.

previously i have mentioned some of these comments (1. HEADING 2 have no content, need to add at least a paragraph under this heading

2. Heading 2.2 , the adjustment of variables’ was done on what basis, either add explanation or include citation

3. Heading 3 also have no content, just like heading 2

4. In figure 2 the “feedback loop” must come after the last block “G=G+1

5. FOR THE HEADING “3.4 Parameters setting of DE algorithm” reference/citation is missing for their value selection

6. Figure 3 must be more explanatory, should show the local maxima and minima in the fig

7. Lines 395 and 398 , what examples? Are they examples or your contribution? If it’s your then rephrase the sentence.

8. Again at line 404 and next the values of parameters have been selected on what criteria? Kindly specify

9. Figure 4 must be cited in the text and add some explanations about it.

10. Table 1 better to add some discussion on table findings

11. Heading 4.1 again the reference or explanation is required to added for parameters setting

12. Better to add those points, discuss about the achieved tasks, mentioned in gaps section

13. Must add the recent references, the latest reference, added is from year 2021

).

so there is no need of any revision

**********

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: Ayuba John

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers Comments PONE-D-25-27253-R1.pdf