Prediction of the Remaining Useful Life of a Switch Machine, Based on Multi-Source Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors proposed a novel HMM based approach for remaining useful life prediction of switch machine. The results look promising, but I have some doubts and hope authors could provide some clarifications.
1. There are some typos and grammar errors in the writing. Also, the manuscript is not organized well. Please spend time to revise the manuscript.
2. The introduction is too short and not enough for people to understand. Please revise, add more literatures and provide more comprehensive introduction
3. There is lack of explanation on the figures, please provide more explanation on the legend.
4. The training, evaluation and testing details are missed. Please provide them.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions of our manuscript. I have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point:
Question 1: There are some typos and grammar errors in the writing. Also, the manuscript is not organized well. Please spend time to revise the manuscript.
Response 1: I have checked the spelling and grammar of the manuscript and made corresponding modifications.
Question 2: The introduction is too short and not enough for people to understand. Please revise, add more literatures and provide more comprehensive introduction
Response 2: I have supplemented the introduction and added relevant references. The revised contents have been highlighted in green in the introduction and references of the revised manuscript.
Question 3: There is lack of explanation on the figures, please provide more explanation on the legend.
Response 3: I have supplemented the contents in Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 in corresponding positions, and the changes were highlighted in green in the revised manuscript.
Question 4: The training, evaluation and testing details are missed. Please provide them.
Response 4: I have supplemented the details of training, evaluation and testing in line 311, and the changes were highlighted in green in the revised manuscript.
I would like to re-submit this manuscript, and hope it is acceptable for publication in the journal. If there are any problems or questions about our paper, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Thank you very much for your attention to our paper.
Sincerely yours,
Weimin Chen
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author,
I specified my reviews about manuscript as below;
-Conclusions section is too short. It should be expanded.
-Literature research is insufficient. The results obtained should be compared with the literature in detail and the differences from the results in the literature should be emphasized.
-The reason why the WDMD-HMM technique is preferred and its advantages over other similar techniques can be detailed.
Kind regards.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions of our manuscript. I have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point:
Question 1: Conclusions section is too short. It should be expanded.
Response 1: I have supplemented the conclusion, and the changes were highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.
Question 2: Literature research is insufficient. The results obtained should be compared with the literature in detail and the differences from the results in the literature should be emphasized.
Response 2: I have compared the method proposed in the paper with references, and the changes were highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.
Question 3: The reason why the WDMD-HMM technique is preferred and its advantages over other similar techniques can be detailed.
Response 3: I have supplemented the WDMD-HMM technology in lines 158 to 168 of the manuscript, and the changes were highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.
I would like to re-submit this manuscript, and hope it is acceptable for publication in the journal. If there are any problems or questions about our paper, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Thank you very much for your attention to our paper.
Sincerely yours,
Weimin Chen
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
There are still some grammar issues in the manuscript. Also, the structure is not organized well. Please continue improving the English and revise the structure.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions of our manuscript. I have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point:
Question 1: There are still some grammar issues in the manuscript. Also, the structure is not organized well. Please continue improving the English and revise the structure.
Response 1: I have rechecked the grammar issues in the manuscript and made corresponding modifications. I also adjusted the structure of the manuscript.
I would like to re-submit this manuscript, and hope it is acceptable for publication in the journal. If there are any problems or questions about our paper, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Thank you very much for your attention to our paper.
Sincerely yours,
Weimin Chen
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author,
Necessary revision were performed for manuscript. Manuscript can be accepted to publish.
Kind regards.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your approval of my manuscript. I would like to re-submit this manuscript, and hope it is acceptable for publication in the journal. If there are any problems or questions about our paper, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Thank you very much for your attention to our paper.
Sincerely yours,
Weimin Chen
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The revision has improved the quality of the manuscript
