Development of a Stock Price Prediction Framework for Intelligent Media and Technical Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. It is confusing for the format of citation in this manuscript. For example, Li et al. [3]. [3] refers to the number 3 article in References? If so, Li et al. should be the number 5 article.
2. Many references such as Wu et al. [2] cannot be found.
3. The manuscript is to predict the closing price. How about the intraday prices? 
4. The "Fundamental analysis" in the manuscript is a kind of natural language processing. It is quite different from the conventional definition of "Fundamental analysis" in finance. It is suggested to clarify the meaning.
5. It is suggested to show the meaning and formula of RMSE in the manuscript. Why it is useful for evaluation?
6. It is found that there are more than one LSTMs, in Table 5. How to compare among them? advantages and disadvantages? 
7. As for technical analysis, some indicators are adopted. Any criteria for the choices of technical analysis indicators? 

Author Response

REF: MDPI applsci-1516726         

Article Title: Development of a Stock Price Prediction Framework for Intelligent Media and Technical Analysis

To: Editor

Re: Response to reviewers

 

 

 

Dear Editor,

 

Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments.

We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers), (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes, and (c) a clean updated manuscript without highlights.

 

 

Best regards,

Mndawe et al.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, thank You for so interesting research.

 

1. General concept comments.

The article is written on the relevant topic and is well structured as well as logically proved.

However, I'd recommend making some improvements to the structure of the article:

1. Please kindly amend the section 1 Introduction and help the reader understanding the following important issues: the research gap which the authors could disclose in the article; the relevance of the topic; the research question and the aim of the article. All those elements could be described on one page;
2. The second section could be entitled as 2. Materials and methods with the following subsections within: 2.1. Theoretical fundamentals; 2.2.  Background; and 2.3. Methodology.
3. Results section containing the following subsections: 3.1. The developed model with the subsections 3.2. Data Summary, 3.3. Experiments; 3.4. Results from fundamental and technical analysis experiments.
4. Discussion section containing the limitations of the model and the issues for future research.
5. Conclusion. All conclusions regarding all 4 previous sections. I suggest authors should start the conclusion from the words - The scientific novelty of the research.. and so on.

 

Table 1-3 on the lines 323-328 illustrates the experiment which is split into three sub experiments. Please kindly make better for understanding the content of the proposition first begins with experiment which is split into three sub experiments, and with experiment two, which is also split into three sub experiments.

Could You please in the end of the resulting section clearly explain in some paragraphs how the researchers a framework for intelligent media and technical analysis by forecasting stock price movement and closing price (stipulated on the lines 451 - 452). The explanation is necessary because it allows to avoid methodological inaccuracies.

 

 

2. Scientific Novelty.

Please kindly describe the scientific contribution to the theory. For example, the researchers could consider such definition as complex approach - Intelligent Complex Analysis comprising both Media and Technical analysis newly explained in the article. The authors could present the role of both types of analysis with adding the considering logic to the theoretical novelty.

 

3. General questions.

There is unclear issues regarding the sequence of logic. I'd suggest to develop the algorithm of the scientific research. 

The authors could step by step build the logical bridge to the theoretical approach.

For this purpose, it could be recommended to add to the literature review some references regarding the wider understanding the topic for future research regarding the digital transformation:

Barykin, S.Y., Kapustina, I.V., Valebnikova, O.A., Valebnikova, N.V., Kalinina, O.V., Sergeev, S.M., Camastral, M., Putikhin, Y., Volkova, L. Digital Technologies For Personnel Management: Implications For Open Innovations (2021) Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 20 (SpecialIssue2), pp. 1-14. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85107756718&partnerID=40&md5=c3b5d3f42a19286b373fbc28d21fd73b

Chaveesuk, S., Khalid, B., Chaiyasoonthorn, W. Digital payment system innovations: A marketing perspective on intention and actual use in the retail sector (2021) Innovative Marketing, 17 (3), pp. 109-123. 
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85114802914&doi=10.21511%2fim.17%283%29.2021.09&partnerID=40&md5=86800493abf6f9e012ae7d08edc5defa
DOI: 10.21511/im.17(3).2021.09

 

I'd recommend the acceptance of the article after this changes.

Author Response

REF: MDPI applsci-1516726         

Article Title: Development of a Stock Price Prediction Framework for Intelligent Media and Technical Analysis

To: Editor

Re: Response to reviewers

 

 

 

Dear Editor,

 

Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments.

We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers), (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes, and (c) a clean updated manuscript without highlights.

 

 

Best regards,

Mndawe et al.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Opinions, comments and recommendations

The paper is an interesting and original study on share price prediction using machine learning and deep learning techniques.

I believe that the article meets the conditions of a scientific publication, but requires some improvements:

1. The Introduction section is too short, without an introduction to the literature related to the topic and without specifying the research gap that will be the basis for the formulated hypotheses.
2. There is no description of research methods in the Introduction.
3. The current sections: Related Work and Background should be basically one section. In addition, it should be supplemented with formulated hypotheses or research questions, which in the further part of the paper will be confirmed or answered (relating to research questions).
4. A relatively significant weakness of the empirical research carried out by the Authors is that the research included a very limited research sample.
5. It is recommended that the symbols of methods or variables used in Table 4 be explained, or that a suitable dictionary explaining for example: ordinary LSTM, stacked LSTM, bidirect LSTM, CNN and others be prepared for section 6 Results.
6. In Conclusions section, there is no discussion regarding the novelty of the article and no reference to the results of the research and how they relate to prior literature. First of all, at this point, reference should also be made to previously formulated hypotheses or research questions.

Best regards

 

Author Response

REF: MDPI applsci-1516726         

Article Title: Development of a Stock Price Prediction Framework for Intelligent Media and Technical Analysis

To: Editor

Re: Response to reviewers

 

 

 

Dear Editor,

 

Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments.

We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers), (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes, and (c) a clean updated manuscript without highlights.

 

 

Best regards,

Mndawe et al.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised manuscript is fine.