Comments on abstract,

the authors in the abstract have been answered the reason behind the research . however, the know how is not clearly stated in the abstract

Comments on title,

the title of the article is quite informative and indicates that the comparison is done with insertion a novel approach. however , it can be more attractive title for this recent subjects

Comments on references

the references are relevant to the main core of the article issue . some of them are not recent enough to the year of publishing , which is

Sellis T., Multiple-Query Optimization, ACM TODS, 13(1), 1988, pp. 23–52.

Comments on introduction/background

The Background in the Introduction is fairy enough , The goal of the paper is match the abstract but in the end of introduction the structured of paper is not mention.

Comments on methodology

Comments on Abstract, title and ‎references: ‎1.‎ The aim is clear and useful in used for ‎information ‎2.‎ The word Comparison in Title must be ‎replase by word ‎use ‎3.‎ No reference to the genetic algorithm and ‎the taboo algorithm

Comments on Introduction/‎background is clear

Comments on Methods: the process of subject selection clear ‎ the operation about genetic algorithm mutation and crossover ‎must ‎be draw as graph

Comments on Results: 1-figures relevant are clearly present ‎ ‎2-if the result have one table explain ‎difference between the methods can be most ‎clear

Comments on discussion and results: The discussion and results are clear and ‎understandable The conclusions section in the study is very good on the ‎subject of MQO , and the study is considered the basis for ‎other future studies.‎

Specific comments on weaknesses of ‎the article and what could be done to ‎improve it: ‎1.‎ Please about title:The word Comparison in Title must be ‎replase by ‎word ‎use ‎2.‎ Please mention reference to the genetic algorithm and the ‎tabu algorithm ‎3.‎ Please mention a table the explain difference between the methods can be ‎most ‎clear ‎4.‎ the operation about genetic algorithm mutation and crossover must ‎be ‎draw as ‎graph

Comments on data and results

‎ there is no table in result explain ‎difference between the methods

there is no example about actual data at least one example about MQO

Comments on discussion and conclusions

The discussion and results are clear and ‎understandable The conclusions section in the study is very good on the ‎subject of MQO , and the study is considered the basis for ‎other future studies.‎