Review Reports - Exploration of MPSO-Two-Stage Classification Optimization Model for Scene Images with Low Quality and Complex Semantics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time out of your busy schedule to carefully review our paper and for your valuable comments, your feedback is crucial to our research work. To this end, we have reshaped the “Introduction” section, added a “Discussion” section, improved the “Related research progress” and “Experiment” sections, and revised the “Method” section. Please see the attachment for the specific modifications. ：）

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a novel approach to enhancing image processing and classification techniques. The authors’ unique presentation style is commendable. However, the structure of the article deviates significantly from the conventional format of Introduction - Methods - Results - Discussion - Conclusion. Various sections seem to be intermingled, making it difficult to discern the paper’s key contributions.

I strongly recommend refining the paper’s structure. While the main sections don’t necessarily need to adhere to traditional naming conventions, it’s crucial that readers can easily understand what part of the paper they’re reading at any given time.

Furthermore, the discussion section needs to be developed or enhanced. The authors should consider addressing the following topics: the implications of their research for the broader scientific community, how their work addresses existing gaps in the field, the limitations of their research, and recommendations for future work.

Lastly, there are specific comments included in the attached PDF file. Incorporating these suggested changes will greatly enhance the quality of the manuscript. I believe the manuscript would greatly benefit from these revisions.