Next Article in Journal
Machine Learning for Defining the Probability of Sentinel-1 Based Deformation Trend Changes Occurrence
Previous Article in Journal
Satellite Observations of Fire Activity in Relation to Biophysical Forcing Effect of Land Surface Temperature in Mediterranean Climate
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Change Detection of Amazonian Alluvial Gold Mining Using Deep Learning and Sentinel-2 Imagery

Remote Sens. 2022, 14(7), 1746; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14071746
by Seda Camalan 1,*, Kangning Cui 2, Victor Paul Pauca 1, Sarra Alqahtani 1, Miles Silman 3,4, Raymond Chan 2, Robert Jame Plemmons 1, Evan Nylen Dethier 5, Luis E. Fernandez 3,4,6 and David A. Lutz 5
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Remote Sens. 2022, 14(7), 1746; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14071746
Submission received: 2 March 2022 / Revised: 31 March 2022 / Accepted: 1 April 2022 / Published: 5 April 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The comments can be found in the attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate the thoughtfulness and thoroughness of the two reviews.  The suggestions have been addressed and we feel they have significantly improved the manuscript.  A detailed response to reviewer1 is found in pdf document.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very competent manuscript.  It is well written and presented.  The tables and figures are professional and informative.  There is a clear statement of intent, logical flow in organization and a very extensive (72) set of appropriate references in complete and consistent format.

The topic is unusual and interesting.  The science is very complex but as the authors briefly mention, the methods might be extended to other change detection situations.  The authors might acknowledge that in some communities, similar change detection is a visual process.  The authors’ decisions to use multiple study sites and three methods of performance evaluation were very appropriate. 

It is a journal policy but the extensive number of figures and tables in the appendix is unusual.  They might be reduced or some incorporated into the primary text.

As in most manuscripts, there are editorial suggestions for consideration by the authors, several of which follow:

  1. It is increasingly common and really an editorial decision but the extensive use of personal pronouns (we, our) is not comfortable for some readers.
  2. Some of the keywords are very general.
  3. Land cover, land-cover, land use, land-use? Perhaps land use land cover (LULC)?
  4. Figure 1 needs country identification and scale. There are a number of other figures that would benefit from an indication of scale or size.
  5. Line 71, mixed or mined?
  6. Lines 151 and 44, data are plural.
  7. Line 189, )?
  8. Many of the figure and table captions are very long.
  9. Line 259, Figure. Remove period.
  10. Line 345, al-though.
  11. Do not separate figures and captions.
  12. In the text Figure is both bold and not?
  13. Line 401, fi-ne?
  14. Reference 26 appears incomplete.

In summary and as stated, this is an excellent but complex manuscript.  This reviewer appreciated the competence of the authors in both the science and the presentation.

Author Response

We appreciate the thoughtfulness and thoroughness of the two reviews.  The suggestions have been addressed and we feel they have significantly improved the manuscript.  A detailed response to reviewer2 is found in the pdf document.

Sincerely,

Seda

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop