A Two-Archive Many-Objective Optimization Algorithm Based on D-Domination and Decomposition
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This work uses CA and DA archives to balance diversity while ensuring convergence. The proposed approach is based on the adaptive strategy D-domination method and the improved Tchebycheff to preserve the convergent solutions, and a set of uniformly distributed solutions are obtained.
The paper is well-written and technically sound. Before the Results Section, the authors could broadly include some practical applications of the algorithm. This aspect may help the reader understand their research's value better.
The experimental phase is appropriate. However, the authors could better describe the comparison in 4.1 by adding some graphics.
Finally, authors should read the entire article carefully to correct typos.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Overview and general recommendation:
The research problem was formulated correctly, and the researcher's methodology was also precisely presented. I have no comments on the scientific part.
The presented material corresponds to the profile of the Journal "Algorithms". The scientific value of the submitted material qualifies the article for publication in this Journal.
The article may be published after completing and correcting all issues. I recommend that a major revision is necessary. I made the detailed comments in point 2. I ask that the authors specifically address each of my comments in their response.
2. Major comments
The layout of the manuscript is incorrect. In particular, there are no conclusions.
Please consider changing the layout of the manuscript by introducing the main points:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and methods
3. Results and discussion
4. Conclusions
Conclusions must be formulated precisely and correspond with the obtained research results. In particular, they should display elements of novelty in the context of using the results of research and analysis. In this situation, the article presents an interesting research methodology, which, however, does not bring revolutionary elements in the context of innovative methods and technologies in scientific research in the subject area of the undertaken research problem. Therefore, it is recommended to clearly indicate the novelty of the proposed solution.
To sum up, the "Discussion" and "Conclusions" should be formulated in such a way as to present the key results obtained in effect of the completed research using proprietary methods.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Regarding the article algorithms-1937524 entitled A two-archive many-objective optimization algorithm based on D-domination and decomposition and they have not clearly shown the advantages in performance of their approach with respect to others from the literature in this field.
Authors don't use a readable English, since there are some parts that was difficult to understand. So, Authors expose the justification, and it is difficult the exposition of the main problem.
Furthermore, Authors do not expose the justification and I could not find the explanation of the main problem in a clearly way.
Also, this paper is a research based on references of years 1981 to 2022, namely authors do not consider recent references, since the 33% of references of the last five years (from 2017 to 2022), in addition References are according to the topic that they try to introduce.
Originality Report shows that this article has a similarity index of 29%, which is too high to be considered as original work, this similarity report is attached to this review.
Please consider the following remarks to improve your article (in some cases, P refers to Page or Pages and L is the Line or Lines where you can find these remarks):
· Section References is not complete, since only 33% of references can be considered as of recent works.
· The similarity Index of this work is 29%, so it is too high to be considered as original work .
· The problem and justification are well described.
· The comparison between state-of-the-art algorithm is not complete at all.
· Poor distribution of the elements to be described or analyzed
· There is not enought experimentation or comparison of the results that demonstrate the novelty of the project.
· Results improperly exposed
· Authors don't use comparative table of the characteristics of the related work, neither some plots that help the experimental results.
· Equations are not well described or defined
· Include general algorithm of the proposed work.
· Some images are very small with poor quality, because of space it would be good to perform a zoom to the area that the authors want to highlight.
· So many details were omitted in the methodology that it is difficult to estimate the contribution of the article.
So, I suggest modifying, if it is the case, for the publication in the journal Algorithms, since the paper by itself have a great potential to publish.
Regards.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
1- The literature review on optimization algorithms is too short in the introduction. The review of optimization methods can be expanded in this section. Some works are recommended to be added, such as:
A modified particle swarm optimization algorithm to mixed-model two-sided assembly line balancing.
Multi-objective optimisation of retaining walls using hybrid adaptive gravitational search algorithm.
Hybrid particle swarm optimization and pattern search algorithm.
Damping Controller Design for Power System Oscillations Using Hybrid GA-SQP.
A Sequential Hybridization of Genetic Algorithm and Particle Swarm Optimization for the Optimal Reactive Power Flow.
An improved water strider algorithm for optimal design of skeletal structures.
Opposition-based firefly algorithm for earth slope stability evaluation.
2- I think that the authors need to perform a hypothesis test and report the p-value over executions of "all" problems.
3-The paper needs a well-structured conclusion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The scientific value of the submitted material qualifies the article for publication in this form. I have no comments.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions.We carefully checked the spelling and grammar of the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Regarding the article algorithms-1937524 entitled A two-archive many-objective optimization algorithm based on D-domination and decomposition and they have not clearly shown the advantages in performance of their approach with respect to others from the literature in this field.
Authors use a readable English, since there are some parts that was easy to understand. So, Authors expose the justification, and it is easy the exposition of the main problem.
Furthermore, Authors expose the justification and I could find the explanation of the main problem in a clearly way.
Also, this paper is a research based on references of years 1981 to 2022, namely authors do not consider recent references, since the 26% of references of the last five years (from 2017 to 2022), in addition References are according to the topic that they try to introduce.
Originality Report shows that this article has a similarity index of 20%, which is too high to be considered as original work, this similarity report is attached to this review.
Please consider the following remarks to improve your article (in some cases, P refers to Page or Pages and L is the Line or Lines where you can find these remarks):
· Section References is not complete, since only 26% of references can be considered as of recent works.
· The similarity Index of this work is 20%, so it is too high to be considered as original work .
· The problem and justification are well described.
· The comparison between state-of-the-art algorithm is not complete at all.
· Well distribution of the elements to be described or analyzed
· There is not enought experimentation or comparison of the results that demonstrate the novelty of the project.
· Results improperly exposed
· Authors use comparative table of the characteristics of the related work, in addition use some plots that help the experimental results.
· Equations are not well described or defined
· Authors include general algorithm of the proposed work.
· So many details were omitted in the methodology that it is difficult to estimate the contribution of the article.
So, I suggest modifying, if it is the case, for the publication in the journal Algorithms, since the paper by itself have a great potential to publish.
Regards.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper can be accepted
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions.We carefully checked the spelling and grammar of the revised manuscript.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Regarding the article algorithms-1937524 entitled A two-archive many-objective optimization algorithm based on D-domination and decomposition and they have clearly shown the advantages in performance of their approach with respect to others from the literature in this field.
Authors use a readable English, since there are some parts that was easy to understand. So, Authors expose the justification, and it is easy the exposition of the main problem.
Furthermore, Authors expose the justification and I could find the explanation of the main problem in a clearly way.
Also, this paper is a research based on references of years 1981 to 2022, namely authors consider recent references, since the 63% of references of the last five years (from 2017 to 2022), in addition References are according to the topic that they try to introduce.
Originality Report shows that this article has a similarity index of 12%, which can be considered as original work, this similarity report is attached to this review.
Please consider the following remarks to improve your article (in some cases, P refers to Page or Pages and L is the Line or Lines where you can find these remarks):
· Section References is complete, since the most of references (63%) can be considered as of recent works.
· The similarity Index of this work is 12%, so it can be considered as original work .
· The problem and justification are well described.
· The comparison between state-of-the-art algorithm is complete and enough.
· Well distribution of the elements to be described or analyzed
· There is enought experimentation or comparison of the results that demonstrate the novelty of the project.
· Results properly exposed
· Authors use comparative table of the characteristics of the related work, in addition use some plots that help the experimental results.
· Equations are well described or defined
· Now, this version of the article meets all the requirements to be published. Congratulations to the authors.
So, I suggest modifying, if it is the case, for the publication in the journal Algorithms, since the paper by itself have a great potential to publish.
Regards.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
