Analyst’s Target Price Revision and Dealer’s Trading Behavior Analysis: Evidence from Taiwanese Stock Market
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Decision: Major Revision
The paper is well written, but novelty is not fully explained. I do recommend the publications, but after substantial modifications.
1. The novelty of any research work should be clearly covered in Abstract. Here are few pointers to make your abstract look more interesting for the readers. Abstract should contains the research gap, which authors will cove in their work. It should include a brief problem statement, what key solution already exists, where is the research gap, and how the proposed framework fill that gap.
2. Highlight the contribution as a bullet point at the end of the introduction section.
3. I would suggest that authors would look into meta-heuristic algorithms, which are widely used these days to solve several real world problems including multi-agent control problem. PSO, GA, and BAS are some of the known algorithms. Authors should give these publications a read, it will help them to explore other domains as well:
a. Smart Surgical Control Under RCM Constraint Using Bio-inspired Network
b. Control framework for cooperative robots in smart home using bio-inspired neural network.
c. Obstacle avoidance and model‐free tracking control for home automation using bio‐inspired approach
4. Without proper comparison, the novelty further weakens. No figures as well.
5. What are limitations of the proposed method? And state some future direction, which may help other researchers.
Additional Comments:
1. Overall, the manuscript is well written.
2. There are minor grammatical mistakes so, read the manuscript to further polish the language.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments.
we have devoted our best effort to revise the paper based on the comments.
Best Regards!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Strengthen the conclusion section by providing suggestions for future research and discussing the limitation of the study.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments.
we have devoted our best effort to revise the paper based on the comments.
Best Regards!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
the topic is interesting, also from the point of view of stock market investments in Taiwan.
1. The title is: “Analyst’s Target Price Revision and Dealer’s Trading Behavior Analysis”.
Please consider extending the title with information about the stock market in Taiwan.
2. The Introduction is long and Includes elements of a Literature review.
3. For example (line 357) table 2. Once is: (0.015*), once is: (4,198). Please check whether this entry is correct, according to the Sustaiability editorial requirements?
4. In the Future, it would be interesting to conduct research for the years 2020-2022.
5. “Sustainability is an international, cross-disciplinary, scholarly, peer-reviewed and open access journal of environmental, cultural, economic, and social sustainability of human beings. It provides an advanced forum for studies related to sustainability and sustainable development…”. (Source: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability).
Please consider supplementing the content with the links of Your research to sustainability issues.
Best Regards
Author Response
Thanks for your comments.
we have devoted our best effort to revise the paper based on the comments.
Best Regards!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I think this is a very interesting article. Although the statistical methods used are very simple, they are sufficient at a minimal level. But I have one remark: “5. Conclusions” lacks a clear reference to the hypotheses presented in line 174 and in line 221-222. I suggest a thorough overhaul of the summary. In addition, I have a few minor comments, but they are debatable and result from my misunderstanding of Taiwanese realities.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments.
we have devoted our best effort to revise the paper based on the comments.
Best Regards!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No comments. It is acceptable now.
