Paper:
Automatic classification of objects is one of the most important tasks in engineering and data mining applications. Although using more complex and advanced classifiers can help to improve the accuracy of classification systems, it can be done by analyzing data sets and their features for a particular problem. Feature combination is the one which can improve the quality of the features. In this paper, a structure similar to Feed-Forward Neural Network (FFNN) is used to generate an optimized linear or non-linear combination of features for classification. Genetic Algorithm (GA) is applied to update weights and biases. Since nature of data sets and their features impact on the effectiveness of combination and classification system, linear and non-linear activation functions (or transfer function) are used to achieve more reliable system. Experiments of several UCI data sets and using minimum distance classifier as a simple classifier indicate that proposed linear and non-linear intelligent FFNN-based feature combination can present more reliable and promising results. By using such a feature combination method, there is no need to use more powerful and complex classifier anymore.

Review:
This paper proposes using a feedforward neural network (FFNN) to extract intermediate features which are input to a 1NN classifier. The parameters of the FFNN are updated via a genetic algorithm with a fitness function defined as the error on the downstream classification, on a held-out set. The performance of this approach is measured on several UCI datasets and compared with baselines.
– The paper’s main contribution seems to be a neural network with a GA optimization for classification that can learn “intelligent combinations of features”, which can be easily classified by a simple 1NN classifier. But isn't this exactly what neural networks do – learn intelligent combinations of features optimized (in this case, via GA) for a downstream task? This has already been successfully applied in multiple domains eg. in computer vision (Krizhevsky et al, NIPS 2011), NLP (Bahdanau et al 2014), image retrieval (Krizhevsky et al. ESANN 2011) etc, and also studied comprehensively in autoencoding literature. There also exists prior work on optimizing neural nets via GA (Leung, Frank Hung-Fat et al., IEEE Transactions on Neural networks 2003). However, this paper claims both as novelties while not offering any improvement / comparison. 
– The claim “there is no need to use more powerful and complex classifier anymore” is unsubstantiated, as the paper’s approach still entails using a complex classifier (a FFNN) to learn an optimal intermediate representation.
– The choice of activations is not motivated, and performance on variants is not reported. For instance, why is that particular sigmoid formulation used? 
– The use for a genetic algorithm for optimization is not motivated, and no comparison is made to the performance and efficiency of other approaches (like standard backpropagation). So it is unclear why GA makes for a better choice of optimization, if at all.
– The primary baselines compared to are unsupervised methods (PCA and LDA), and so demonstrating improvements over those with a supervised representation does not seem significant or surprising. It would be useful to compare with a simple neural network baseline trained for K-way classification with standard backpropagation (though the UCI datasets may potentially be too small to achieve good performance).
– The paper is poorly written, containing several typos and incomplete, unintelligible sentences, incorrect captions (eg. Table 4) etc.