Dynamic Optimization of Chemical Processes Based on Modified Sailfish Optimizer Combined with an Equal Division Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper deals with dynamic optimization of chemical processes modeled by nonlinear ODEs. Therefore, a metaheuristic optimization algorithm, a so-called sailfish optimizer is used, which is additionally equipped with an equal division method. The paper presents a problem description and the optimization algorithm. The performance of the optimization algorithm is tested with standard benchmark functions. Based on these results, dynamic optimization is carried out for several descriptions of chemical processes. In general, I think this is a good paper which demonstrates the application of metaheuristic algorithms to processes relevant in real-world engineering. The main methodological objection I have is that tests of the statistical significance of the results are missing. I think such a statistically valid performance comparison is vital to judge methods fairly and I strongly recommend to give such comparisons as they would make the interesting findings of the paper more significant.
Author Response
Thank you very much. We are grateful to you for providing us with valuable comments and a chance to improve quality of our manuscript. Please see the attachment for your comments and corresponding responses.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review comment
Title: Dynamic Optimization of Chemical Processes based on Modified Sailfish Optimizer combined with an Equal Division Method
I (Reviewer) have now commented on this paper.
If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision. For your guidance, my comments are appended below.
- Please check the formatting template of the journal.
- The authors should add more references to all the results and discussion parts. if you used the results of other papers, you must point to references. Furthermore, you should indicate your results.
- The results are interesting and suitable for this journal. However, improvements are needed before it can be considered for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much. We are grateful to you for providing us with valuable comments and a chance to improve quality of our manuscript. We have tried our best to revise it and we hope this version can meet the magazine’s requirements. Please see the attachment for your comments and corresponding responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised version takes into account the issues I pointed out in my initial review. I now recommend publication.
