Sweetgum Leaf Spot Image Segmentation and Grading Detection Based on an Improved DeeplabV3+ Network
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
The manuscript needs some improvement in English.
Author Response
Thanks for your patience to revied my paper. I have reply the point in the attached file, please check it. Thanks!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is good in general; the sequence of ideas is consistent and well written, the research questions are straightforward, and the research methodology and findings of the researcher are suitable.
The references used by the author are good.
Also, the ideas in the article
More Details:
The approach of this research is well justified.
The research objectives are clear and well-presented.
The "related work" contains references to relevant articles for the targeted targets.
The proposal includes original contributions that extend the knowledge of the field.
Author Response
Thanks for your patience to revied my paper. Thank you for your affirmation.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript sounds technically average; however, I have following concerns should be addressed before any decision.
1. Please explain in your captions of figure and title of table, why are these tables or figures necessary in your paper? What are the purposes and what are the message you want to deliver via these figures and tables?
2. The current metrics might not be sufficient to judge the performance of the model holistically. Please enhance the result analysis part of your paper.
3. The existing literature should be classified and systematically reviewed, instead of being independently introduced one-by-one.
4. In the introduction section, the motivations of the proposed access control model must be included in detail. The section numbering must be changed in the paper organization paragraph.
5. The abstract is too general and not prepared objectively. It should briefly highlight the paper's novelty as what is the main problem, how has it been resolved and where the novelty lies?
6. The 'conclusions' are a key component of the paper. It should complement the 'abstract' and normally used by experts to value the paper's engineering content. In general, it should sum up the most important outcomes of the paper. It should simply provide critical facts and figures achieved in this paper for supporting the claims.
7. For better readability, the authors may expand the abbreviations at every first occurrence.
8. The author should provide only relevant information related to this paper and reserve more space for the proposed framework.
9. The theoretical perceptive of all the models used for comparison must be included in the literature.
10. What are the real-life use cases of the proposed model? The authors can add a theoretical discussion on the real-life usage of the proposed model.
11. The related works section is very short and no benefits from it. I suggest increasing the number of studies and add a new discussion there to show the advantage.
12. The descriptions given in this proposed scheme are not sufficient that this manuscript only adopted a variety of existing methods to complete the experiment where there are no strong hypothesis and methodical theoretical arguments. Therefore, the reviewer considers that this paper needs more works.
13. Key contribution and novelty has not been detailed in manuscript. Please include it in the introduction section
The paper needs minor editing.
Author Response
Thanks for your patience to revied my paper. I have reply the point in the attached file, please check it. Thanks!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In general, the authors have updated the manuscript to my satisfaction. However, here are some minor corrections suggested:
1. Results section be enhanced by adding comparisons with other state-of-the-art and recent algorithms/techniques
2. Legibility of figures should be improved (Figure 2.5 to Figure 2.11)
3. Block diagram of the proposed architecture must be redrawn to give the reader a broader understanding of the contribution. That will also keep the reader engaged.
Author Response
Point 1: Results section be enhanced by adding comparisons with other state-of-the-art and recent algorithms/techniques.
Response 1:
Thanks for your suggestion. We perform an experimental comparison with the latest model SEMD.(L549,L562,L563,L660)
Point 2: Legibility of figures should be improved (Figure 2.5 to Figure 2.11).
Response 2:
Thanks for your suggestion.We added explanations to Figures 2.6, 2.8, and 2.9.(L245,L273,L282)
Point 3: Block diagram of the proposed architecture must be redrawn to give the reader a broader understanding of the contribution. That will also keep the reader engaged.
Response 3:
Thanks for your suggestion.We have made modifications.(L232)
Reviewer 3 Report
No more comments
No more comments
Author Response
Thanks for your patience to revied my paper. I have upload a new version, please check again.
