Research on High-Resolution Reconstruction of Marine Environmental Parameters Using Deep Learning Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Focusing on reconstructing the edges of the data, the authors proposed a deep learning model with the attention mechanism for high-resolution reconstruction. Good results were achieved with reference to the original data. The article was well written. Several questions should be addressed before publication.

1. The integration of attention mechanism needs more interpretation, why the attention mechanism gives more information on details?

2. Not all the details are detected using the proposed methods, for example, in Fig. 17. The detail beside the area being paid attention to is still non-observable. 

3.Please give more remarks on the down sampling factor between 2 and 4.

4.In the introduction, more previous work about attention mechanism in other fields, not limited to the ocean field, should be discussed.

5. The data should be added as supplementary material if applicable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Good article and promising investigation 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our paper and for your positive feedback.

Your recognition is highly valued, indicating that our study has met high standards in terms of quality and accuracy. We appreciate your support and encouragement, which motivate us to continue our in-depth research and strive for excellence.

Once again, we sincerely appreciate your review. If you have any additional suggestions or guidance, we would be more than happy to consider them.

Best regards,

Yaning Hu

Corresponding author:

Name: Liwen Ma

E-mail: [email protected]

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors developed an approach for reconstructing high resolution marine parameters. Overall, I must say the English is of poor quality and there are so many errors I cannot even pick up them all for authors (see the attached PDF files). My decision is between reject and resubmit, because authors describe a solid methodology, so I leave the final decision to editor and other reviewers.

(1) first of all, authors should improve the abstract, it does not present concise information on the challenge and the goals and results.

(2) the introduction section is tedious and get me lost because it is filled with descriptives but not narrative.

(3) I don’t think section 4.2 is well presented, do authors really believe that ‘visual’ is a good measure? Why not do some quantification.

(4) my major concern related to the discussion, because it is superficial, authors only summarized some key points, but this is not good enough, they should present more evidence to support their analysis, not just ‘believe’ (line 437).

(5) there are plenty errors, authors can refer to my annotated files.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

authors should definitely improve the english. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors improved their manuscript accordingly, but I still strongly suggest them to further polish the language.