Wael Abd El-kader Awad
Hybrid Rough Neural Stock Market Prediction System
==================================================================================================
While the topic of stock market prediction with principal component analysis and rough set theory has quite a long history, the author does not describe at all how he has surveyed this topic, if any. When we search for the related topics with keywords such as "rough-set-theory, stock-market-prediction, principal-component-analysis, and neural-network," which are exactly the keywords of this submitted paper too, we come across a tremendous amount of papers since 1990's proposing a method of predicting stork market using rough set. Nevertheless, any reference was not cited in Section Introduction.

The author refers to [8] for neural networks and [1] for rough set theory, but the both are far from frequently cited, representative, nor the original proposal of the concept. Later, the author wrote, "The rough set concept was introduced by Pawlak and his colleagues," but the paper by Pawlak is not cited.

The last half of Section 2, that is, after "Let P ..." we cannot find any reference cited, except for the very last line "Otherwise X is a rough set with respect to R [9]. (sic)" It implies that this crucial part of the method used in this submission was already proposed by [9], that is, any new proposals are not made by the author.

In Section 4, in the long paragraph starting with "The main procedure is based on the principle of indifference combined with the maximum entropy principle, where the entropy ..." is not referred to any paper either. It implies this is the original proposal of the author, but actually not.

Expecting something new proposal or new results, the reviewer tried to read tens of literatures on this topic -- stock market prediction using principal component analysis and rough set theory with neural networks, but failed to find anything new in this submitted paper.

The paper includes lots of mistakes in English, such as "each have ...," "between it nodes ..." etc. Figures are not appropriate. The reviewer failed to understand what the Figure 1 tells us. Figure 2 is missing. In Figure 3 no description concerning principal-component-analysis though the author claimed in Introduction that he used it, etc.

Therefore the reviewer hate to say this but it would be impossible to accept this submission, and encourage the author to study how a scientific paper should be described by reading many good papers.