Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper predicted the thermal conductivity of rocks through soft computing and machine learning methods. As far as model generation and validation are concerned, the paper is well organized and well developed. Furthermore, the results show acceptable improvements over previous models. There are some minor changes that need to be made in the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your constructive comments. Your comments helped the manuscript's improvement and we answered all your concerns in the attached file. 

We hope the answers could address all your concerns properly. 

Kind regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors applied soft computing techniques for predicting thermal conductivity of rocks. Two models were developed, based on which, gene expression programming (GEP) algorithms and nonlinear multivariable regressions (NLMR) were utilized. The results look encouraging and motivating. But there are still some contents, which need be revised in order to meet the requirements of publish. A number of concerns listed as follows: 

(1) The abstract does not provide significant information and it should be revised to highlight the significant methodological contributions and conclusions.

(2) In the introduction section, you should give the novelty and the contributions of your works.

(3) The proposed method in the context of the proposed work should be written in detail. The theoretical background of the proposed method is adequately detailed in the paper.

(4) The computation complexity of the proposed method should be clearly described.

(5) Result and discussion should be rewritten to summarize the significance of the work.

(6) The literature review is poor in this paper. You must review all significant similar works that have been done. Also, review some of the good recent works that have been done in this area to your paper, such as 10.3390/agriculture12060793; 10.1109/JSTARS.2021.3059451; 10.1016/j.engappai.2022.105139; 10.1007/s10489-022-03719-6 and so on.

(7) All abbreviations need to be written in full for the first time, such as Line 12, TC; Line 34, TD and so on.

(8) Compared with the existing methods, the innovation of the proposed method needs more detailed description

(9) What are the advantages and disadvantages of this study compared to the existing studies in this area?

(10) Correct typological mistakes and mathematical errors. The paper is in need of revision in terms of eliminating grammatical errors, and improving clarity and readability.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive comments. Your comments helped the manuscript's improvement, and we answered all your concerns in the attached file.

We hope the answers can address all your concerns appropriately.

Kind regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper deals with an estimation of thermal conductivity of rock via mechanical rock properties as e.g. density, porosity, P-wave velocity, etc. This deminishes needs of experimental measurement of thermal conductivity. Two empirical equations were established for estimation of thermal conductivity. The paper can be interesting to researchers and engineers dealing with e.g. geothermal reservoirs. The article is clearly written, with well-articulated procedures and conclusions. After removing minor typos marked in the attached file, I recommend it for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive comments. Your comments helped the manuscript's improvement, and we corrected all your mentioned issues.

Kind regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

According to the revised paper, I have appreciated the deep revision of the contents and the present form of this manuscript. There is little content, which need be revised according to the comment of reviewer in order to meet the requirements of publish. A number of concerns listed as follows:

(1) The authors need to interpret the meanings of the variables.

 

(2) Please highlight your contributions in introduction.

 

(3) To explore Comparative results with existing approaches/methods relating to the proposed work. The method/approach in the context of the proposed work should be written in detail.

 

(4) Conclusion: What are the advantages and disadvantages of this study compared to the existing studies in this area?

 

(5) The inspiration of your work must further be highlighted. Some suggested recent literatures in previous comment should add in the revised paper.

 

 

(6) Further correct typological mistakes and mathematical errors.

 

 

I hope that the authors can carefully and further revise this manuscript according to the reviewer comments in order to meet the requirements of publish.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive comments. Your comments helped the manuscript's improvement, and we answered all your concerns in the attached file.

We hope the answers can address all your concerns appropriately.

Kind regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx