Food Risk Entropy Model Based on Federated Learning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript "Food Risk Entropy Model Based on Federated Learning" presents an interesting and novel concept in the food safety domain - federated learning. Also, the Food risk entropy model represents a new concept, which can be used by the competent authorities to monitor the status of particular chemical residues in food products.
Below the authors can see my comments:
line 36: "inaccessible parts" Why do the authors use these words? Maybe "important part"
Line 41: "certain degree of variation in pesticide residues" The authors should add if the pesticide residues exceeded the MRL!
Line 216: The authors should emphasize the relationship between MRL (maxim residue limit) of particular pesticides and the risk entropy, because, in terms of food safety, MRL is crucial. Based on MRL, authorities can enforce the legislation.
The discussion of the results is missing from the manuscript. In order to increase the value of the research, the authors are encouraged to do it.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you as well as all the reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments to improve the quality of the manuscript before its acceptance to this prestigious journal.
All the concerns and constructive suggestions have been correctly addressed as much to the best of our knowledge.
The specific modification details are in the uploaded attachment.
We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
It was my pleasure to read this article. It is well structured and provides new insight into policy makers' related research filed. However, there are some weaknesses that need to be corrected before it can be considered suitable for publication. See comments below:
Contribution of the study is not presented clearly. Authors have to describe it from different angles.
It is better to use more articles in the field of food security and its importance. Authors are suggested to take into consideration the following reference in order to increase the scientific impact of their paper and support their evidences:
https://doi.org/10.1080/10371656.2021.1895471
I do not find the discussion section. Authors should discuss the results and compare them with other research.
The conclusion section need to be improved, also, more clearly and more linked you the main insights from the research. I consider it necessary that the conclusions section establishes more clearly the contributions of this work, which are not few. This will help to enhance the relevance of the work. Likewise, I consider it necessary that the authors write down various implications both at an academic level (advances in theory) and at a professional level (practical) derived from this research.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you as well as all the reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments to improve the quality of the manuscript before its acceptance to this prestigious journal.
All the concerns and constructive suggestions have been correctly addressed as much to the best of our knowledge.
The specific modification details are in the uploaded attachment.
We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The proposed method should be compared with the other state-of-the-art methods to demonstrate the efficiency of your method.
Please argue for the rationale for generalizing the proposed method within a given task. Identify the weaknesses behind your proposal.
A qualitative approach would be useful, added to the quantitative approach – in this way assuring a better understanding and generalization of the research results.
The contributions of this paper must be clearly stated and explained, including the method that is used and the (software) tools that were used.
Discuss the limitations of your method and threats-to-validity of your results.
Also, it would good to have a future work section.
General remarks: The article must demonstrate novelty and technical contribution, with recent studies comparisons. You also have to make sufficient checking for the paper organization and language by asking technical experts in English.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you as well as all the reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments to improve the quality of the manuscript before its acceptance to this prestigious journal.
All the concerns and constructive suggestions have been correctly addressed as much to the best of our knowledge.
The specific modification details are in the uploaded attachment.
We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
- The topic is interesting, but the paper needs deep and major revisions. More importantly, the quality of English needs a real improvement.
- I recommend that authors review the article thoroughly and consider using a professional proofreading service to improve the style of the article and the quality of the English. Many sentences are unclear. The paper is full of language mistakes.
- I struggled to follow the story of your research. The paper missed flows between sentences and paragraphs.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you as well as all the reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments to improve the quality of the manuscript before its acceptance to this prestigious journal.
All the concerns and constructive suggestions have been correctly addressed as much to the best of our knowledge.
The specific modification details are in the uploaded attachment.
We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I congratulate the authors, they have made all the modifications and from my point of view have improved the quality of the article.
I recommend publishing.
Good luck in your future work.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for your support of our work. All the comments you have made have helped us to improve the quality of our manuscripts. We wish you all the best. We look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you again!
Reviewer 4 Report
In my first review, I suggested the following:
- The topic is interesting, but the paper needs deep and major revisions. More importantly, the quality of English needs a real improvement.
- I recommend that authors review the article thoroughly and consider using a professional proofreading service to improve the style of the article and the quality of the English. Many sentences are unclear. The paper is full of language mistakes.
Unfortunately, the authors did not address any of my comments. In the revised version, I did not see any changes regarding the quality of the English, and they did not use a professional proofreading service either. The paper is still full of language mistakes and need deep and major revisions.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for recognizing our work and for your critical review. Your comments are very helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript. We are sorry for the inconvenience caused by our mistake. We have critically reviewed the manuscript for grammatical and presentation errors which have been corrected. We hope that the updated manuscript will meet with your acceptance.
I look forward to your response, thank you.
