Non-Waste Technology for Utilization of Tree Branches

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Generally, the paper is written on a good level. The paper is acceptable in its current form. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I am pleased to write my following comments about the paper entitled ¨Non-waste Technology for utilization of tree branches ¨:

-In fact, the main contributions of this paper is not clear. So, the authors should clearly mentioned their contributions in some summarized points.

-Introduction is very short and several previous works have been neglected. 

-Future work could be added in Conclusion. 

-Recent related papers have been recently published in MDPI, please carefully study and cite. 

-I think equation 2 is not correct, please carefully check. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors suggested a non-waste technology for utilization of tree branches. The topic is interesting, however, following items should be significantly, and clearly addressed. The paper could be reviewed after careful editing of the paper and improving it.

-          The paper needs to be re-organized and re-written.

-          The paper needs to be proffered, essentially. The current version is the word-by-word translating, and is not clear.

-          The abbreviations not to be used in the abstract.

-          Adding some quantitative results to abstract is recommended. Please revise the abstract section completely.

-          A Section describing all nomenclature, parameters and variables should be added to the paper. The relevant dimensions should be added to nomenclature section.

-          The Introduction is weak, it should be sensibly improved by presenting the application context, the open problems, the relevant works, and the paper contributions.

-          The bulk referencing should be avoided.

-          The highlighted should be bolded at the end of introduction section.

-          Line 59: Analysis of technologies for non-waste utilization of tree branches. Not clear.

-          Lines 59-123, “2. Materials and Methods” should be presented in introduction section.

-          The Materials and Methods section is not well written, should be re-written completely focusing on the important sections of the proposed method.

-          The proposed methodology is not clear. Should be described in detail.

-          How a new reader can understand your proposed approach? What are your starting and ending points for the proposed approach? Imagine you want to draw a flow chart for your proposed approach. How can you present clearly it?

-          Results and discussions should follow the journal instructions to be clear for readers. These sections are not understandable in current form.

-          Section “5. Prospects for further research” should be merged to section “4. Conclusions”.

-          More details of the algorithm complexity are required (i.e. computational burdens).

-          The obtained results should be compared with those obtained by applying other techniques in this field, in order to emphasize the benefits deriving by the application of the proposed algorithm.

-          Enrich the conclusion section, re-writing and adding a detailed and quantitative discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All comments have been carefully addressed. I recomend accepting the paper

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

No further comment.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx