Next Article in Journal
The Role of Citrus Groves in Rainfall-Triggered Landslide Hazards in Uwajima, Japan
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing Suitable Techniques for Rainwater Harvesting Using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Methods and GIS Techniques
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Multi–Step Approach for Optically Active and Inactive Water Quality Parameter Estimation Using Deep Learning and Remote Sensing

Water 2022, 14(13), 2112; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14132112
by Mehreen Ahmed 1, Rafia Mumtaz 1, Zahid Anwar 2,*, Arslan Shaukat 3, Omar Arif 1 and Faisal Shafait 1
Reviewer 1:
Water 2022, 14(13), 2112; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14132112
Submission received: 29 May 2022 / Revised: 27 June 2022 / Accepted: 29 June 2022 / Published: 1 July 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper requires moderate revisions:

1-Literature review in the field of water quality evaluation by artificial intelligence models:

-Reliability assessment of water quality index based on guidelines of national sanitation foundation in natural streams: integration of remote sensing and data-driven models

-Prediction of water quality parameters using evolutionary computing-based formulations

2-Why did authors avoid considering "water quality index" based on NSF guidelines?

3-What are criteria for selection of input variables? This issue needs substantial clarifications 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted article "A Multi-Step Approach for Optically Active and Inactive Water Quality Parameter Estimation Using Deep Learning and Remote Sensing" is very relevant and interesting. Water is one of the crucial components of human life, ecosystems and all nature. Identification of water quality changes is very important, resulting in a rapid and exact response.  

Main comments:

1. The second chapter (Related Work) could be combined with the first Introduction. 

2. At the end of the Introduction briefly and clearly mention the main aim of the work.

3. Methodology section is very long. It is a lot of information, but in some cases, it is a general description of the model, but not accurate data used in the model. 

4. Some figures' (8-13) quality is not enough clearance to see what is drawn there. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept as is

Back to TopTop