A New PSO Technique Used for the Optimization of Multiobjective Economic Emission Dispatch

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think this manuscript is crude and doesn't offer new insights or new approaches. The title of the paper itself is inappropriate. There are a lot of grammatical and expressive errors, and the logic is confusing, especially in Section Introduction (hard to list here).

(1)    In this paper, the bi-objective optimization problem is transformed into single objective optimization problem by using penalty factor. However, The Economic Emission Dispatch problem studied in this paper is simple, small in scale, and has good properties, such as connectivity and conductibility. It is not a combinatorial optimization problem. Therefore, the ordinary nonlinear algorithm based on mathematical programming theory can be competent to obtain the exact optimal solution. It is not necessary to use various heuristic algorithms to solve this problem.

(2)    A novel PSO algorithm is proposed to solve the combined EED problem, but I don't see any improvement in this algorithm. It is just a customization for a specific problem.

 The title of the paper itself is inappropriate. There are a lot of grammatical and expressive errors, and the logic is confusing, especially in Section Introduction (hard to list here).

Author Response

Respected Sir, 

Thank you so much for your valuable suggestions. I try my best and modified my article as per your suggestions. Hope it is up to mark. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The keyword contains the "novel particle swarm optimization," but this terminology does not appear in the abstract.

2. Spacing between lines needs to be more consistent in lines 119-130; 190-225.

3. The flowchart is presented more attractively.

4. The reader feels a sentence is missing (lines 138-139)

5. The transition from Figure 1 to Figure 2 should be explained in 1 or 2 paragraphs.

6. Table 4. (row 9, column 5); try to write numbers, commas, and periods consistently.

7. Comparisons in Tables 4 and 5 are considered unfair because only NewPSO records its computation time.

8. References are still minimalist, usually 30-45 references

9. Does this New PSO have the following elements:

a. The effect of inertia

b. An attraction to the best location the particle has visited

c. An attraction to the best location among neighboring particles

10. If statement NO. 9 is fulfilled, where is the novelty of your New PSO?

1. The keyword contains the "novel particle swarm optimization," but this terminology does not appear in the abstract.

2. Spacing between lines needs to be more consistent in lines 119-130; 190-225.

3. The flowchart is presented more attractively.

4. The reader feels a sentence is missing (lines 138-139)

5. The transition from Figure 1 to Figure 2 should be explained in 1 or 2 paragraphs.

6. Table 4. (row 9, column 5); try to write numbers, commas, and periods consistently.

7. Comparisons in Tables 4 and 5 are considered unfair because only NewPSO records its computation time.

8. References are still minimalist, usually 30-45 references

9. Does this New PSO have the following elements:

a. The effect of inertia

b. An attraction to the best location the particle has visited

c. An attraction to the best location among neighboring particles

10. If statement NO. 9 is fulfilled, where is the novelty of your New PSO?

Author Response

Respected Sir, 

Thank you so much for your valuable suggestions. I try my best and modified my article as per your suggestions. Hope it is up to mark. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

REVIEW:

The manuscript “A Novel Psois Used for The Optimization of Multiobjective Economic Emission Dispatch” sent to Electronics presents a study on utilizing and comparing a Particle Swarm optimization method for multiobjective cost and emission minimization of economic emission load dispatch problem in power production cases. Three case studies have been solved with the method, results have been compared to other methods and promising results have been obtained.

 

I am not fully sure is this manuscript in the scope of Electronics, because the work doesn’t have anything to do with electronics, but I guess this is an issue for the editor to decide.

 

The structure of the manuscript is good, but it is not written very well. There is a lot of typos (even in the title), and the state-of-the art is not easy to read and not sufficient. Additionally, it is not clear what part of the PSO algorithm is new or is this just applied here. The motivation and objective are clearly presented.  The methodology is presented in a way that someone else could probably build the model and get similar results. The major results of the case study have been presented shortly, but well. The conclusions are based on the results.

 

The major critic is related to the novelty of the presented method/approach. The problem solved has been solved many times (maybe not with the actual numbers used here) and seems that the PSO here is only applied here and no part of it is new.   

 

Thus, I feel that this manuscript is not too interesting, not well written and nothing novel is found in this manuscript. But I want to give the authors an opportunity to show that I have misunderstood something, so I recommend major revision. But at least the following comments/questions have to be addressed  

·       Please describe very clearly what part of the PSO algorithm is novel or honestly inform the reader that there is nothing new, but the objective of this manuscript is to show that the new PSO algorithm is superior to other algorithms (and this you have shown for this particular problem). 

·       Read through the manuscript carefully and correct all typos and bad sentences.

·       Why is total EED cost provided for DE algorithm for cases 2 and 3?

 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION from REVIEWER: MAJOR REVISION

 

 

See my review.

Author Response

Respected Sir, 

Thank you so much for your valuable suggestions. I try my best and modified my article as per your suggestions. Hope it is up to mark. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1.Psois should be written as PSO, and the meaning of "is" should be clarified.

2.The contributions of the present study should be listed in the introduction section. In particular, it is necessary to demonstrate the model features and the novelty of the new PSO method.

3. The penalty factor h is not explained before putting into use. For now, it seems to have the relative weight between the fuel cost and emission tonnage, which simply applies the maximum of P_i. However, the value of such a maximum is not properly justified, and also the very reason behind choosing such as value for setting the relative weight is mostly unknown.

4.The so-called novel PSO method does not demonstrate any unique feature. It seems to me as one traditional PSO method, and behaves no better than it in any way.

5.In essence, the bi-objective optimization problem has been transformed as a single-objective model with only two linear constraints. And the single objective is only of a normal quadratic form, does it ever occur to the authors that such problems could be exactly solved to optimum? Therefore, it is necessary to compare the PSOIS method with exact solutions with mathematical programming techniques.

Should be improved.

Author Response

Respected Sir, 

Thank you so much for your valuable suggestions. I try my best and modified my article as per your suggestions. Hope it is up to mark. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The problem studied in this paper is a simple continuous optimization problem, which is not worth solving with a heuristic algorithm. The proposed PSO algorithm can only be regarded as an exercise for a specific problem. I don't think the paper offers new approaches or insights.

Author Response

Respected Sir

Thank you so much for your valuable guidance. I tried to edit the article and answer your questions. I hope it is up to par and answers the questions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The current version of the manuscript is fit for publication.

Author Response

Thank you so much, sir, for your kind support.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have clearly improved the manuscript and all my questions/comments have been addressed properly. Importantly now a reader can see the novelty of this manuscript.

 

I suggest that this manuscript is ACCEPTED in the current form. 

Author Response

Thank you so much, sir, for your kind support.

Reviewer 4 Report

I have no further comments.

Author Response

Thank you so much, sir, for your kind support. Sir kindly accept the article as I fulfill the suggested corrections.