Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is interesting and the manuscript is well organized. Hence, I recommend to accept for publication.

 

None

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The format of the equations needs to be corrected. 

Please find a native speaker to help refine the language

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1.This paper focus on theoretical methods. I think you should add more explanations, including the advantages.

2.The basic foundation of modifications also futher explian, even shortcomings in related research.

3. I think the advantage of method need to be tested by different condition,especially in the accuracy. Otherwise, it may be advanced method.

Quality of English shoud be improved. For example,"The source information is useful for formu-lating scientific emergency response decisions···";"the conduct of source term estimation study······"······ I strongly recommend that you revise English expression with the helpful of your supervisor.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors propose an improved PSO for hazardous gas dispersion problems.

- Title of Sec. 2.3 defines abbrev. of PSO, which was used before this chapter.

- Graphical quality of Fig.1 is very low

- 'validated utilizing the Prairie Grass experiment' - there is no reference

- the symbol of 'm' should be joined to 0.46 And 100 in rows 199 and 201

- The English needs corrections / proofreading.('This paper, one experiment is selected')

- Why the colourbars in Fig. 5 are in each pair of plots?

- I am not sure if the goal of the paper is to apply PSO on the problem or estimate fitting function to the data. The authors alternate coefficients of R and R2...

- The paper looks very chaotic (especially the experimental part), the reader is not able to orient in the text, and plots and tables are often described roughly.

- The statistical comparison is described very poorly.

 

English need to be corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors uploaded a new version of the paper, where some of the remarks were corrected. The most significant point was focused on experimental data and its statistical comparison. I do not see any significant differences between the now and old methods.

English is better but still, there is place to improve the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

I am not sure if the authors understand me, and I believe I understand them. The problem is that there are no statistical methods used in the paper to show if the differences between various settings of PSO perform significantly differently. This is fundamental in the optimisation-research topic.

The English is on the middle level, there are some issues, but generally, it is readable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx