Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present a methodology by which the HVI output data can be corrected. The authors presented the work with enough mathematical justification. The work can be accepted for publication after the following minor comments are considered.

Abstract

Define ML before first use.

The authors need to provide a brief summary about the numerical results they obtained.

Introduction

The authors should provide a concise figure that shows the principle of HVI measurements.

Materials and Methods

The authors should provide the cultivars the samples were brought from. The cultivars will be another source of variation between the samples.  

It will be much clearer for the reader to develop a flowchart diagram. The current way of explanation is a bit more confusing for the reader.

Is using only 9 samples as reference materials enough to build a robust correction equations?  

Results and Discussion

Figure 3. Provide legend of the black dots as well.

Figure 4. Provide legend of the red and blue dots as well.

Table 3. State what x and Y refer to.

The authors used only 1 study in the discussion which isn’t enough to draw a robust comparison between the current study and previous work.  

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall the manuscript is well written and addresses an area of need for the cotton industry. However there are some areas where the manuscript could be improved.

The last sentence of the abstract, line 23: "This refers that the whole fibrogram..." the word "refers" is an odd word choice and is not correct, the authors need to revise this sentence.

Line 86-87..."...the whole fibrogram curve could be very useful for the whole cotton industry." Eliminate at least once instance of the word "whole".

Line 93-94: "...spinning mills could use the total within-sample variation in fiber length....".  How would that work? 

Final paragraph of the Introduction (and this ties into the conclusion) posits that a correction procedure is needed to bring fibrogram measurements to a similar level as in other HVI measurements for comparison between instruments.  This paragraph is not very clear about the between-instrument comparison and while the conclusion is that there is less variability between instruments not much data is presented about the existing differences between instruments or what those differences equate to in terms of function which makes judging the improvements a challenge.

Lines 113-116: the discussion of the 4-4-10 versus cotton classification 1-2-2 is not framed well.  The purpose of research, and specifically this research, is to examine variation.  The purpose of cotton classing is to reduce variation.

Line 183-189: much attention is paid to the fact that the 9 nine cottons are not as uniform as calibration cottons.  Why not use calibration type materials?  Wouldn't the higher uniformity be more useful?  Later on line 250-251 it is stated that "Curation of nine reference samples would require too much time and effort".  Isn't that a subjective statement? How much time and effort is too much to improve the result?

Figures 3 and 4 need the legend improved.  Figures and tables should stand alone.  The black dots in the figures are addressed in the text but not the legend.

Overall the conclusion should be revised to better state the final results of the work and how it can be utilized.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx