Review Reports
- Yi Liu1,
- Tiezhu Shi2,* and
- Zeying Lan3
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Gafur Gözükara Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Muhammad Qaswar
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
After my detailed evaluation, the paper can be impored before publcation process. You can find my detailed suggestion in the paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. why is the judgment indicator using RPD instead of the most commonly used R2?
2. The sampling rules are too vague. Should include specific scope and specific sample handling rules.
3. The research background is not sufficiently presented. Please deepen the research background.
4. The same problem exists with the significance of the study, please strengthen it further.
5. The data analysis section relies solely on the RPD to derive conclusions, which is insufficient to support the conclusion that segmented pretreatment is effective.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageExtensive editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study is significant for enhancing the prediction efficiency of Cu content in soil. However, further improvement is necessary based on the following comments. I suggest a major revision.
1. Line 107. Please add reference of international soil classification system.
2. In M&M, authors need to explain how each part of spectra was treated using preprocessing treatment? I suggest to add summary table of each pretreatment parameters.
3. Line 176: Explain the parameters of models. i.e., numbers of PC.
4. Authors should include RPIQ in Cu estimation models summary Table 2.
5. Table 2 and Figure 4 presenting same results? I suggest to remove Figure 4.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
N/A
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll my suggestions which are related to paper to improve it were adressed.
The paper can be accepted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.Avoid long and complex sentences and try to break long sentences into shorter ones to improve readability
2.Check that the paragraph divisions make sense and make sure that each paragraph has a clear topic sentence
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbbreviations in some figures i.e., Fig 10 and Fig 11 are missing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf