Bio-Inspired Algorithms and Its Applications for Optimization in Fuzzy Clustering
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is more a state of the art on genetic algorithms over the years. It's no clear for me to understand the scientific contribution to justify to publish this study.
Author Response
R: Thanks for your comments. The paper has been improved by including relevant information explaining in more detail the main scientific contribution of this review. The paper deals with bio-inspired optimization algorithms (not only genetic algorithms) and their role in optimizing fuzzy clustering for real world applications. We analyze what has been done in this research area and what can be done in the future. We considered all the comments of the reviewers to extend and improve the paper and we expect that in this way it can to be understood by the readers in the best way possible.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The submitted paper “An Exhaustive Review of Bio-Inspired Algorithms and its Applications for Optimization in Fuzzy Clustering" is addressing an important and interesting topic, therefore thank you very much for your work and the contribution.
The paper r attempts to describe the algorithms based on nature, that are used in fuzzy clustering. In terms of content, paper is well positioned in the journal scope. The analysed fuzzy clustering methods are very interesting and up to date, being at the same time one of the mostly used tools in current research. Therefore, in my opinion, the presented review is interesting and gives contribution in the subject under investigation.
Generally, the paper is well structured, important theoretical and practical aspects of the examined area are studied and presented in a clear and consistent manner. While I found the paper technically well prepared, several question arise and others need explanation:
- Paper lacks of clear contribution – research questions are missing
- A paper of the review type requires a rigid rigour of the literature selection as well as the repeatability of the selection process. However, I have some concerns here. Why don't the Authors use one of the available methodologies, such as PRISMA? The lack of a flowchart and its detailed discussion is also a disadvantage. In my opinion, the keywords used in the sources search process should be presented.
- While overally the language layer of the paper is well-prepared, in some places the form and style are not fully clear in scientific terms.
Author Response
The submitted paper “An Exhaustive Review of Bio-Inspired Algorithms and its Applications for Optimization in Fuzzy Clustering" is addressing an important and interesting topic, therefore thank you very much for your work and the contribution.
- We would like to thank the reviewer for the positive comments.
The paper r attempts to describe the algorithms based on nature, that are used in fuzzy clustering. In terms of content, paper is well positioned in the journal scope. The analysed fuzzy clustering methods are very interesting and up to date, being at the same time one of the mostly used tools in current research. Therefore, in my opinion, the presented review is interesting and gives contribution in the subject under investigation.
Generally, the paper is well structured, important theoretical and practical aspects of the examined area are studied and presented in a clear and consistent manner. While I found the paper technically well prepared, several question arise and others need explanation:
- We would like to thank the reviewer for the positive comments. We have made every possible effort to improve the paper based on your comments and suggestions.
- Paper lacks of clear contribution – research questions are missing
- Thank you for the comments. We have now described in a more detailed fashion the contribution of the paper, as well as the research questions that motivated the study that was done in this paper. We have included in the Introduction a more detailed description of the contribution.
- A paper of the review type requires a rigid rigour of the literature selection as well as the repeatability of the selection process. However, I have some concerns here. Why don't the Authors use one of the available methodologies, such as PRISMA? The lack of a flowchart and its detailed discussion is also a disadvantage. In my opinion, the keywords used in the sources search process should be presented.
- Thank you for the comments and suggestions. We have now included the PRISMA methodology in the new version of the paper, as well as a flowchart and detailed discussion and the keywords used in the searching process.
- While overally the language layer of the paper is well-prepared, in some places the form and style are not fully clear in scientific terms.
R: Many thanks for the important suggestions and all the comments. To improve the paper, we have included a PRISMA diagram to explain with more detail our queries, the keywords of the search were included in the main case, the main contribution was explained with more detail and the conclusions were extended.
Reviewer 3 Report
I thank the authors for the presented paper.
The article represents interesting results of publicity analysis for Bio-Inspired Algorithms and its Applications for Optimization in Fuzzy Clustering.
However, in the process of reviewing the paper, a number of shortcomings were noticed.
The paper is titled "An Exhaustive Review of Bio-Inspired Algorithms and its Applications for Optimization in Fuzzy Clustering". However, the authors devote only 4 pages to the essence of the issue, namely "Exhaustive Review". The rest of the article, described in the "4. Experimental Results" section, is a study of the citation of four algorithms chosen by the authors in the Web of Science system. My suggestion is to revise the title of the article in order to highlight the main result.
In addition, a number of other remarks can be highlighted:
- there is no review of the research results on the effectiveness of algorithms, by which one can judge the effectiveness of their application;
- the choice of the four considered algorithms is not justified. The authors write that they used these algorithms most often last year, but this cannot serve as a justification;
- in the section "4. Experimental Results" there is practically no discussion of the obtained results. As part of the study, it would be better for the authors not only to provide illustrative material, but also to conduct an analysis.
- the use of the 2021 year results in the analysis is impractical (Fig. 4, 8, 11, 14, 16). Also, there are no comparative graphs for different methods.
- the quality of the conclusions presented in section "5. Conclusions" is low. The conclusion that newer methods are cited less in scientific research than older methods is obvious and does not require such a volume of research carried out in Section 4.
- Please check the English of the paper more deeply. Some sentences are not easy to read, the flow is not right, especially in the end of the paper.
Author Response
I thank the authors for the presented paper.
The article represents interesting results of publicity analysis for Bio-Inspired Algorithms and its Applications for Optimization in Fuzzy Clustering.
R: Thank you for the positive comments on the paper.
However, in the process of reviewing the paper, a number of shortcomings were noticed.
The paper is titled "An Exhaustive Review of Bio-Inspired Algorithms and its Applications for Optimization in Fuzzy Clustering". However, the authors devote only 4 pages to the essence of the issue, namely "Exhaustive Review". The rest of the article, described in the "4. Experimental Results" section, is a study of the citation of four algorithms chosen by the authors in the Web of Science system. My suggestion is to revise the title of the article in order to highlight the main result.
- Thank you for the comments and suggestions. We have now changed the title of the paper, as suggested by reviewer, so that the title better reflects what has been done in the paper.
In addition, a number of other remarks can be highlighted:
- there is no review of the research results on the effectiveness of algorithms, by which one can judge the effectiveness of their application;
- Thank you for the comment. We have now included a paragraph on the explanation of the research results.
- the choice of the four considered algorithms is not justified. The authors write that they used these algorithms most often last year, but this cannot serve as a justification;
- Thank you for the comment. We have now included why these four algorithms were selected for the study.
- in the section "4. Experimental Results" there is practically no discussion of the obtained results. As part of the study, it would be better for the authors not only to provide illustrative material, but also to conduct an analysis.
- Thank you for the comment. We have now included in Section 4 some paragraphs on the explanation of the research results and also an analysis of the results.
- the use of the 2021 year results in the analysis is impractical (Fig. 4, 8, 11, 14, 16). Also, there are no comparative graphs for different methods.
- Thank you for the comments. However, we believe that including the 2021 year is important, to indicate that there some papers have been published on the current year.
- the quality of the conclusions presented in section "5. Conclusions" is low. The conclusion that newer methods are cited less in scientific research than older methods is obvious and does not require such a volume of research carried out in Section 4.
R: Thank you for your comments. We have revised and improved the Conclusions section according to the suggestions of the reviewer.
- Please check the English of the paper more deeply. Some sentences are not easy to read, the flow is not right, especially in the end of the paper.
R: Thank you for your comments. We have made every possible effort to improve the quality of English in the paper. We now believe that paper is more readable and understandab
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I found my suggestions adressed. Thank You.
I think that layout and quality of the figures and draws MUST BE increased.
All at all graphical presentation of the work is very week. What is a reason for including print screens for WoS database (the are huge)- data should be presented in different form.
Author Response
I found my suggestions adressed. Thank You.
- We would like to thank the Reviewer for the positive comments on our paper.
I think that layout and quality of the figures and draws MUST BE increased.
- We have improved the quality of the Figures, both in resolution and form. Thank you for the comment.
All at all graphical presentation of the work is very week. What is a reason for including print screens for WoS database (the are huge)- data should be presented in different form.
- We have also improved the plots of web of science, by making our own figures. Thank you for the comment.
Reviewer 3 Report
I would like to thank authors for the corrections they made. All comments were taken into account.
Author Response
- We would like to thank the Reviewer for the positive comments on our paper.
