YOLO-DFAN: Effective High-Altitude Safety Belt Detection Network
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall great topic and nice effort.
- Supplementary Material's MUST be provided to MDPI to verify the claims author have made.
Please add in the 2nd last paragraph of your introduction – regarding aim of this study and objectives. I agree that you have mentioned the what you're proposing but novelity should be explicitly explained.
For a study like this, it is important to separately add some recent literature Section, Also focusing on how did you conducted keywords search and mention relevant sources (Google Scholars, WoS, Scopus) - so that readers can get better idea of relevant literature in this domain.
Conclusion section can be improved by highlighting limitations and proposing directions for future studies.
Methods used in the study needs to be compared well with the efficiency of one method over the other being compared statistically, I can see that missing clearly.
Explain why the current method was selected for the study, its importance and compare with traditional methods.
Also add risk factors in your study – risk associated with this domain – risk matrix. / False positive and True negative should be added.
Please pay special attention to how the methodology and the methods used are presented. As it is currently presented, the reader does not get a clear picture of what analysis was done in the research.
Another issue is the lack of a clear message about a novelty in the study. There is a need for a clear message of what the authors have elaborated.
- Revise the abstract accordingly.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
I am very glad to receive your advice, which has benefited me a lot.
First of all, we added the research purpose and purpose of this paper and explained its novelty in the penultimate paragraph of the introduction; Secondly, we added some recent relevant literature. Thirdly, limitations and future research directions are added in the conclusion. Fourthly, some experimental results of traditional methods are added to compare with our method, and the advantages of our method compared with traditional methods are analyzed. Fifthly, the evaluation index and the analysis and comparison of the results of different methods are added. Finally, the abstract is slightly modified.
Thank you again for your advice.
Yours sincerely,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents a YOLO-DFAN algorithm to recognize high-altitude safety-belt images.
The paper is generally well structured. The proposed idea sounds interesting. However, the following comments should be clarified.
1. The presentation looks quite messy. Please check the author’s guidelines to arrange your text, especially for the reference cited in the paper.
2. The quality of the figures should be better, especially for Figures 5-7.
3. The conclusion part should be further enhanced to summarize the main findings of the manuscript. The limitations of this study and directions for future work should be included.
4. English needs a lot of work. There are lots of English errors, informal expressions, and typos across the manuscript. I strongly suggest the authors could read and check their manuscript several times before submission.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
I am very glad to receive your advice, which has benefited me a lot.
Firstly, we cleaned up the presentation, readjusted Figures 1 and 2, and reformatted the references. Secondly, the main findings of the paper are summarized and the limitations of this study and the direction of future work are explained. Thirdly, figures 5-7 are the original images from the dataset and we think your opinion is very important and will pay more attention to the image quality when expanding the dataset in the future. Finally, I rechecked some English errors.
Thank you again for your advice.
Yours sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript titled "YOLO-DFAN: Effective high-altitude safety belt detection net- 2 work" by Yan et al. indicated improvement of YOLO-DFAN. This is very interesting and written clearly. But some corrections may be needed. As for evaluation idenx in this study, detection accuracy was used. In order to evaluete more detal, it is better add other evaluation idenxes such as precision, recall, F value, mAP0.5, mAP0.95, etc. In addition, it is better to add advantage(s)/disadvantage(s) of this imprived algorithm. In Fig,8, it is better to calculate average of each percentages by multiple tests, and statistical significants.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
I am very glad to receive your advice, which has benefited me a lot.
Firstly, some experimental results of traditional methods are added to compare with our method, and the advantages of our method compared with traditional methods are analyzed. Secondly, the evaluation index and the analysis and comparison of the results of different methods are added. Finally, we modified Figure 8.
Thank you again for your advice.
Yours sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
