On the Development of Triple Homogeneously Weighted Moving Average Control Chart
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Based on the abstract of the work, the article is very interesting and has practical value. Having reviewed the publication, I want to report that it has a number of disadvantages. It is necessary to optimize the list of references. Pick up a contemporary review of literary sources. Highlight high priority logs. In the Introduction section, give a detailed and critical overview of the research problem. Justify the choice of mathematical apparatus and formulas. Why you are applying models and methods. Give more characteristics.
All of your article information should be clearly described and clearly presented to the readers of the Symmetry. Write about strengths and weaknesses in problem research and modeling.
In conclusion, be sure to draw conclusions that will not be repeated in the annotation. Show numerical characteristics. Provide research prospects.
Indicate grants or thanks to colleagues if you wish.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Comment
Based on the abstract of the work, the article is very interesting and has practical value. Having reviewed the publication, I want to report that it has a number of disadvantages. It is necessary to optimize the list of references. Pick up a contemporary review of literary sources. Highlight high priority logs. In the Introduction section, give a detailed and critical overview of the research problem. Justify the choice of mathematical apparatus and formulas. Why you are applying models and methods. Give more characteristics. All of your article information should be clearly described and clearly presented to the readers of the Symmetry. Write about strengths and weaknesses in problem research and modeling.
In conclusion, be sure to draw conclusions that will not be repeated in the annotation. Show numerical characteristics. Provide research prospects. Indicate grants or thanks to colleagues if you wish.
Response
All the comments are addressed in the main manuscript carefully and are highlighted in all the sections with green color.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article develops a triple HWMA (THWMA) chart for efficient monitoring of the process mean under both zero- and steady-state scenarios. The non-normal effects of monitoring characteristics for heavy-tailed, highly skewed, and contaminated normal environments are computed under both states. The paper is very weak in both scientific and presentation points of view. It is just a direct application of various mixed models. The article contains many tables that can be summarized in much fewer tables to show the results. Here I listed some comments in case the authors want to submit the article to another journal.
P.3. Lines 77 and 81. In the definition of the control limits of HWMA, the choice of the parameter "K" should be mentioned in more detail. Also, "??L0" should be defined.
P.3. and P.4. Lines (90-94) and (109-114) and many other places, please write the equations in lines and use the left-hand side once as:
"LHS=............
=............
=............".
P.4. Line 121, the range of "λ" was identified as "λ∈(0,1]" while no ranges are given for the same parameter in the previous definitions.
Some discussion from the application section can be moved to the previous sections.
In Appendix-A-2, please use one of the notations "Var(.)" or "var(.)" for the variance, but not both. Similarly for the Covariance notation in different places.
Appendices A-1 and A-2 were listed without mentioning them in the text. Why do you need these Appendices?
Author Response
Reviewer-2
Comment
The article develops a triple HWMA (THWMA) chart for efficient monitoring of the process mean under both zero- and steady-state scenarios. The non-normal effects of monitoring characteristics for heavy-tailed, highly skewed, and contaminated normal environments are computed under both states. The paper is very weak in both scientific and presentation points of view. It is just a direct application of various mixed models. The article contains many tables that can be summarized in much fewer tables to show the results. Here I listed some comments in case the authors want to submit the article to another journal.
P.3. Lines 77 and 81. In the definition of the control limits of HWMA, the choice of the parameter "K" should be mentioned in more detail. Also, "??L0" should be defined.
P.3. and P.4. Lines (90-94) and (109-114) and many other places, please write the equations in lines and use the left-hand side once as:
"LHS=............
=............
=............".
P.4. Line 121, the range of "λ" was identified as "λ∈(0,1]" while no ranges are given for the same parameter in the previous definitions.
Some discussion from the application section can be moved to the previous sections.
In Appendix-A-2, please use one of the notations "Var(.)" or "var(.)" for the variance, but not both. Similarly for the Covariance notation in different places.
Appendices A-1 and A-2 were listed without mentioning them in the text. Why do you need these Appendices?
Response
- is known as signaling coefficient its values changes according to the choice of in-control average run length (. At small choices of , the values of K are also small and vice versa.
- All the equations are adjusted according to the instructions of the reviewers. Please see equations 1 to 10 and all the equations in the appendix sections.
- The design parameters of all the proposed schemes are expressed please see lines 120-123.
Authors have used var(.) for variance and covar(.) for the covariance in the main manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Please find attached the review report.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer-3
Comment-1
Line 77: Symbol Yj is not defined.
Response 1
please see line 79 in the main manuscript.
Comment-2
The computations proceeding formulas (4) and (7) should be shortened.
Response 2
The comment is addressed according to the instructions. Please see
Lines 93-95 and 111-113 in the main manuscript.
Comment-3
In my opinion, Appendices contain standard computations and therefore can be omitted.
Response-3
In the appendices, only the necessary computations are provided related to the proposed design, and all the other computations are omitted. Please see lines 348- 403 in appendices.
Comment-4
Please improve the language and style of the manuscript.
Examples of errors: – Line 65: “Section” → “section”. – Line 73, Line 84: “Deign” → “Design”. – Lines 283-284:
The sentence “The real dataset is taken from Montgomery [3] related to the industrial manufacturing process.” should be reformulated. – Lines 322-324: The sentence “An illustrative example related manufacturing process of silicon wafers is also provided to highlight the importance of the proposal.” should be reformulated.
Response-4
All the comments are addressed in the main manuscript carefully.
Reviewer 4 Report
see attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer-4
Comments
Line 58: Blank space before ‘Alevizakos et. Al’
Line 67: ‘[…]Concluding remarks with future some lines are highlighted […]’ should be ‘[…]Concluding remarks with some future some lines are highlighted […]’
Line 73: ‘2.1. Deign of HWMA scheme’ should be ‘2.1. Design of HWMA scheme’
Line 84: ‘2.2. Deign of DHWMA Scheme’ should be ‘2.2. Design of DHWMA Scheme’
Lines 217-22: It seems that the line spacing is different than in the rest of the document.
In the references section, I would recommend listing all the authors instead of using “et al.”
Please, check that all the authors have the following (and in the same order): last-name, Initial. For instance, in reference 9, it is written ‘[…], M. Riaz […]’ instead of ‘[…], Riaz, M. […]’
Responses
All the comments are addressed in main manuscript with pink color.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for providing a new version of the article and considering our comments on the previous one. I would now accept the paper to be published in symmetry.
