Deep Learning Algorithms for Forecasting COVID-19 Cases in Saudi Arabia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewer Report for A Comparative Study of Deep Learning Algorithms for Forecasting Coronavirus Using Time Series Data: A Case Study in KSA submitted to Applied Science.
The author of the manuscript forecast time series data of Covid-19 with various algorithms. The comparison is made between deep learning and ARIMA methodology. The empirical evidence shows that LSTM has the best performance.
The manuscript is written in a very well way. It can be published after some minors. Please consider the followings.
In the introduction part please emphasize more the novelty of the manuscript.
Please compare the existing literature with the proposed methodology. Also, consider the work of https://doi.org/10.1080/02664763.2022.2028744 in the literature.
The main assumptions of ARIMA type model is stationarity. Please provide the unit root test results with ACF and PACF plots.
Please in the conclusion discus the main findings of the manuscript and enrich the section with future study ideas.
Author Response
We firstly would like to thank you for your kind words about the manuscript. It is our sincere hope that the paper reaches and is properly presented to future readers.
The author thanks the reviewer for these valuable observations and suggestions. The reviewer has raised 4 minor comments, which have been addressed in the revised manuscript. Explanations in responding to each specific comment are provided in the attached Word file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I recommend to the authors of the submitted manuscript not to use abbreviations in the title of the paper. The exact meaning of each abbreviation presented in the text must be given whenever it is first used in the text.
In the abstract, the authors present their motivation to pay attention to the researched topic and emphasize the need to investigate the given issue. Here they present the content of their paper including the methods and procedures that were used. I recommend focusing more on defining the objactives of the research and providing more extensive information about its results in the content of the abstract.
The manuscript contains references from specialist literature on a sufficient topic, to which the authors of the manuscript continuously refer during their interpretation.
The introductory chapter presents an introduction to the researched issue, the authors emphasize the importance of researching the given topic for human society. The authors present here some possibilities of practical use of the obtained results, which I recommend moving to the conclusion chapter. Part of the introductory chapter is also an overview of the methods used. However, well-defined research objectives and the formulation of one or more research hypotheses that the authors of the manuscript will attempt to prove in their research should be a part of the introductory chapter. The chapter focused on the state of current knowledge of the issue follows.
A passage focusing on the specification of the methods and procedures used as well as the description of the data used follows. The relatively comprehensive chapter presenting the results of the research that the authors arrived is probably the pivotal part of the entire study. This section contains a number of illustrative figures or clear tables, however, their source should be indicated, even if they are the results of one's own research.
The final summary of the findings follows.
Author Response
We firstly would like to thank you for your kind words about the manuscript. It is our sincere hope that the paper reaches and is properly presented to future readers.
The author thanks the reviewer for these valuable observations and suggestions. The reviewer has raised 4 minor comments, which have been addressed in the revised manuscript. Explanations in responding to each specific comment are provided in the attached Word file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
