A Brief Taxonomy of Hybrid Intelligence
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper prsents a good review of hybrid intelligence systems. The most important problme of the paper is that the authors should cite all references in the text.
Author Response
Please find the response in the PDF attached (R1)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This article is not structured. There is no analysis or review in the article. There are no research results in this article. I don't understand why the authors sent this text.
Authors need to clarify the work performed and show their contributionsin a proper section. The research method and strategy used need to be added and explained in the context of the work. Finally, authors must add a new section to present
the benchmarking process and their analysis/contributions. The critical
discussion is also missing.
Authors should improve the paper and then submit it again to advance in
the peer-review process.
Author Response
Please find the response in the PDF attached (R2)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I have reviewed the manuscript "A Brief Taxonomy of Hybrid Intelligence", Manuscript ID: forecasting-1327031. In this perspective paper, the author presents a brief taxonomy of hybrid intelligence, targeting the description of the possible relationships between human and machine intelligence for robust forecasting. The author ends his analysis with a short overview for future research in this field.
I consider that the article will benefit if the author takes into account the following remarks and address within the manuscript the signaled issues:
Overall comments regarding the manuscript.
Remark 1: the main strong point of the manuscript consists in the fact that it approaches an interesting topic for the experts in the field.
Remark 2: the main weak point of the manuscript. In my opinion, the main weak point of the Manuscript ID: forecasting-1327031 consists in the fact that even if the manuscript is interesting, it still remains an aspect that must be emphasized and strengthened more by the author. Therefore, even if the reviewed paper is interesting and documented, it lacks a part that is essential in the case of perspective papers, namely the fact that this type of paper should discuss a series of recently published papers or a current research topic of high interest in which the author's perspective sheds an incisive light on key findings in research.
A perspective paper should present a new viewpoint on existing problems, fundamental concepts, preponderant notions on a specific topic, propose and support a new hypothesis, or discuss the implications of a newly implemented innovation. In the perspective paper under review, the author's opinions are not sufficiently highlighted, being rather replaced by a review-type presentation of the opinions and results retrieved from the scientific literature. I appreciate the fact that the paper contains in the references section 97 titles, but in the context in which the article has 17 pages (out of which 7 represent its content while 10 pages contain the references), unfortunately the article is "overburdened" with information from the scientific literature, lacking the very important own critical viewpoints that exist only to a small extent.
If the above-mentioned problems are solved, I consider that the paper will benefit if the author addresses within the manuscript the following aspects:
Remark 3: Lines 6-15, the "Abstract" of the manuscript. In what concerns the "Abstract", I consider that in addition to the elements already presented, the author must emphasize the novelty of his approach.
Remark 4: the developed taxonomy. Generally, the main building steps of a taxonomy contain: information gathering, designing and building a draft taxonomy, reviewing/testing/validating/revising the taxonomy and concluding the remarks. I would like the author to specify within the manuscript if and how did he approach the validation of the developed taxonomy.
Remark 5: the referenced papers. In the actual version of the manuscript, the "References" section contains a list of 97 papers. I do not contradict the value of these papers, or their relevance in this context, but I consider that the article under review will benefit if the author explains within the paper what was his selection criteria for the cited works, based on which he has chosen the referenced papers.
Remark 6: the paper has been submitted to the MDPI Journal Forecasting. As the paper has been submitted to the MDPI Journal Forecasting, I consider that the author should strengthen the main impact and relationship of his study with regard to attaining an accurate forecast. In the actual form of the paper, this connection is mentioned twice, at Lines 62-65: "Compared to individual problem-solvers, multiple problem-solvers can benefit from social learning and achieve greater accuracy [12]. Research on joint perceptual tasks have recently unveiled the conditions and cognitive functions underpinning accuracy improvements in joint decision-making [13-16]." It will benefit the paper if the author provides more details on this issue, highlighting his own opinions regarding the perception of the forecasting accuracy in the context of the proposed taxonomy.
Remark 7: choosing the most appropriate forecasting technique. When dealing with a forecasting problem, one of the most common concerns of researchers relates to the selection of the most appropriate forecasting technique. Obviously, this selection depends on a wide variety of factors, such as the purpose/context of the forecast, the relevance and availability of historical data, the desired degree of accuracy, the forecasted period of time, the cost/benefit of the forecasting, the time available for making the analysis. I would like the author to specify in the manuscript details regarding the possibility of using the proposed taxonomy in choosing the most appropriate forecasting technique.
Remark 8: the comparison between the perspective from the manuscript and other ones is missing. After having presented his opinion on the approached subject, the author should move forward to a discussion within which he should extend the comparison between the developed approach and results from the manuscript and other ones that have been developed and used in the literature for the same or related purposes. The author should also highlight clearly what are the advantages and disadvantages when comparing his devised study with other studies from the scientific literature. This comparison is mandatory in order to highlight the clear contribution to the current state of knowledge that the author has brought.
Remark 9: insight regarding the perspective. I consider that the paper will benefit if the author makes a step further, beyond his analysis and provides an insight at the end of the manuscript regarding what he considers to be, based on the obtained results, the most important, appropriate and concrete actions that one should take in order to benefit from the perspective targeted within the manuscript.
Other remarks.
- Using run-on expressions. At Line 56, the author states: " Alexa, Siri etc.". In a scientific paper one should avoid using run-on expressions, such as "and so forth", "and so on" or "etc.". Therefore, instead of "etc.", the sentence should mention all the elements that are relevant to the manuscript.
- The citations within the manuscript are marked using superscripts and therefore they are not in accordance with the recommendations of the Forecasting MDPI Journal's Template. According to this template, in the text of the manuscript, the reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ] and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10), or [6] (pp. 101–105).
- The References section. I consider that the author should pay more attention to the details, by revising and correcting the format of the References section, according to the Forecasting MDPI Journal's Template recommendations.
- The format of the paper. In some cases, there are unnecessary empty lines (for example, Lines 40, 86, 98, 118, 125, and many others) and even large empty spaces within the paper (page 2 contains only ten lines of text).
- The first section of the manuscript has no title. It should be entitled "Introduction" and numbered as the first section of the manuscript. All the sections of the manuscript must be numbered.
Author Response
Please find the response in the PDF attached (R3)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
In general, the article is a good overview in the field of hybrid intelligence systems.
However, the article should be formatted using the template of this Journal.
Reviewer 3 Report
I have reviewed the revised version of the manuscript "A Brief Taxonomy of Hybrid Intelligence", manuscript-ID forecasting-1327031, along with the point-by-point replies submitted by the author to my comments, and I can conclude that the manuscript has been improved.
