A Vehicle Detection Method Based on an Improved U-YOLO Network for High-Resolution Remote-Sensing Images
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for your comments, they have been very helpful to me. For specific instructions on how to make changes, please see the attached documentation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In general, the authors performed a qualitative work on the optimization and modernization of the YOLO network.
But, in my opinion, there are points that have to be improved.
1. One of the main problems of the article is weak scientific novelty, as well as the connection of the results with practical activities.
2. I don't understand why the authors chose the "Essay" research type?
3. The number of scientific studies on optimization and improvement of algorithms for detection/segmentation of various objects is huge. Accordingly, the authors must try very hard to prove the scientific novelty and practical value of this research.
4. How are the authors proposed to use the research results? Is there a prospect of model operation and decision-making in real time.
5. Abstract. I recommend that authors redo the abstract after making changes to the body of the article. An abstract is a should give a pertinent overview of the work and should be an objective representation of the article. I recommend briefly describe the background, the main methods, summarize the article’s main results, indicate the main conclusions.
6. The introduction section should be strengthened by clearly identifying the research hypothesis, research questions, objectives, motivations, and novelty of the research. It will help the reader to understand the context and purpose of the study better.
6. I suggest to the authors, at the end of this section, to clearly distinguish and describe the research path "problem → goal → tasks → novelty → practical significance".
7. There is no discussion section. The "Discussion" section should contain a comparison of the results of this article and similar studies by other authors. The authors need to prove the superiority and scientific novelty of this study.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments, they have been very helpful to me. For specific instructions on how to make changes, please see the attached documentation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor,
Please find the attached document for comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your comments, they have been very helpful to me. For specific instructions on how to make changes, please see the attached documentation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
My comments on the initial version of the manuscript have been sufficiently addressed by the authors in this revised version. I have no further comments on the technical aspects. The manuscript may be considered for publication after a proofreading.
Author Response
It is an honor to receive your approval of our work.
Thank you for your help in improving the quality of our articles.
Reviewer 2 Report
I recommend published the article in present form
Author Response
It is an honor to receive your approval of our work.
Thank you for your help in improving the quality of our articles.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor,
No further comments. I recommend this manuscript to be published in this journal after checking English grammar and spelling checking.
Need only minor English grammar and spelling checking.
Author Response
Thanks to your comments, we have used MDPI's English editing service to revise grammar and spelling to ensure that the English language quality of the articles is up to scratch. Thank you for your help in improving the quality of our articles.
