You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Lijuan Shi1,
  • Ang Li2 and
  • Lei Zhang3,*

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a fault diagnosis model based on imbalanced text mining. Some questions have to be addressed to improve this work.

  1. What’s the novelty of this paper?
  2. Authors claim that they propose a sustainable fault diagnosis model, but it’s hard to find out how sustainable the model is.
  3. Introduction is wordy, so readers hardly understand this work. Some contents should be moved to literature review section. And a summary of the literature is required.
  4. Examples of data source should be given to help readers understand data structure and contents.
  5. This work considers imbalanced text mining. To shows the effectiveness of this model, authors need to train a model without considering imbalanced text mining.
  6. Citation format is incorrect.

Author Response

Please see the attachment below

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

See attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the file attached below

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is revised, but authors don't highlight where the paper is revised. I still have some concerns.

  1. Authors removed sustainable from the title, so this paper shows the low relevance to this journal. Besides, in the introduction they still claimed this is a sustainable method, but don't show how sustainable it is.
  2. Authors considered the effect of imbalanced text, but need to show considering the effect is better than not considering. I understand authors consider this effect due to practical reasons, but the performance without considering the effect may be better. Without experiments, authors cannot claim the proposed method is better.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. Please see the document attached below.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors' funding cannot explain why your method is sustainable. It'd be better explain the reason in the main body.

Author Response

Thank you for the review. Please see the file attached below.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf