Tracking the Rhythm: Pansori Rhythm Segmentation and Classification Methods and Datasets

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The hardware specifications of the computer on which the simulations were performed are not mentioned.

The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations of the work should be also further highlighted. Please present the novelty compared to the previous published papers in the last 2 years.

The overall plagiarism is low, but some paragraphs were copied without adding the proper reference, such as:

"The first is local 235 feature extraction operations, which cannot directly extract global features from a more 236 extensive range. Second, when the number of feature channels increases, the number of 237 parameters of the convolution kernel will also become large, increasing the amount of 238 calculation." which used the paper Y. Zhou, S. Chen, Y. Wang and W. Huan, "Review of research on lightweight convolutional neural networks," 2020 IEEE 5th Information Technology and Mechatronics Engineering Conference (ITOEC), 2020, pp. 1713-1720, doi: 10.1109/ITOEC49072.2020.9141847.

"The start and end 211 times of each predicted rhythm category are shown in output masks with unique colors. 212 The background class was illustrated with black (RGB: 0, 0, 0), Aniri with red (RGB: 255, 213 0, 0), AniriChangzo with green (RGB: 0, 255, 0), Jajinmori with blue (RGB: 0, 0, 255), 214 Jinyangjo with yellow (RGB: 255, 255, 0), Jungjungmori with pink (RGB: 255, 0, 255) and 215 Jungmori with sky green (RGB: 0, 128, 128)." from Demeyere, N., & Humphreys, G. W. (2007). Distributed and focused attention: Neuropsychological evidence for separate attentional mechanisms when counting and estimating. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(5), 1076–1088.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing and giving us the opportunity to manuscript entitled " Tracking the Rhythm: Segmentation and Classification Methods and Datasets" (ID: applsci-1909888). Based on the reviewer comments, we renamed it as “Tracking the Rhythm: Pansori Rhythm Segmentation and Classification Methods and Datasets”. We are glad to submit a revised version of our manuscript for consideration at the Applied Sciences.

We appreciate the time and effort that you have devoted to providing your helpful feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to you for your insightful and productive comments. The suggestions have made this a much better paper.

We have carefully considered and addressed the comments and integrated changes to indicate the comments raised by the reviewers. We have also extensively rewritten the text according to the reviewers' suggestion to make it less speculative and tracked the changes within the manuscript. All the authors have equally contributed towards the revision of the manuscript. Please see below for a point-by-point response to your valuable comments and concerns. Our responses are shown in Blue italics, while reviewers' comments are in Black Bold italics. We look forward to your response and hope the revision will enable you to accept this version of the manuscript.

Please find the detail of our response to your valuable comments in the attached file. 

We look forward to hearing from you and thank you for your valuable and constructive comments.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find my comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing and giving us the opportunity to manuscript entitled " Tracking the Rhythm: Segmentation and Classification Methods and Datasets" (ID: applsci-1909888). Based on the reviewer comments, we renamed it as “Tracking the Rhythm: Pansori Rhythm Segmentation and Classification Methods and Datasets”. We are glad to submit a revised version of our manuscript for consideration at the Applied Sciences.

We appreciate the time and effort that you have devoted to providing your helpful feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to you for your insightful and productive comments. The suggestions have made this a much better paper.

We have carefully considered and addressed the comments and integrated changes to indicate the comments raised by the reviewers. We have also extensively rewritten the text according to the reviewers' suggestion to make it less speculative and tracked the changes within the manuscript. All the authors have equally contributed towards the revision of the manuscript. Please see below for a point-by-point response to your valuable comments and concerns. Our responses are shown in Blue italics, while reviewers' comments are in Black Bold italics. We look forward to your response and hope the revision will enable you to accept this version of the manuscript.

Please find the detail of our response to your valuable comments in the attached file. 

We look forward to hearing from you and thank you for your valuable and constructive comments.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thanks for uploading a revised version of your initial manuscript and answering my queries. In my opinion, the manuscript is almost ready for publication. I will make just two remarks:

- Conclusions, last sentence: No, cross-validation is not about correcting the category size unbalances in the dataset, but about checking the robustness of the classification/segmentation metrics. Please correct that.

- The manuscript still requires a deep English language check before publication.

Thanks,

Regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing and giving us the opportunity to manuscript entitled "Tracking the Rhythm: Pansori Rhythm Segmentation and Classification Methods and Datasets" (ID: applsci-1909888). We are glad to submit a revised version of our manuscript for consideration at the Applied Sciences.

We appreciate the time and effort that you have devoted to providing your helpful feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to you for your insightful and productive comments. The suggestions have made this a much better paper.

We have carefully considered and addressed the comments and integrated changes to indicate the comments raised by the reviewers. We have also extensively rewritten the text according to the reviewers' suggestion to make it less speculative and highlighted the changes within the manuscript. All the authors have equally contributed towards the revision of the manuscript. Please see below for a point-by-point response to your valuable comments and concerns. Our responses are shown in Blue italics, while reviewers' comments are in Black Bold italics. We look forward to your response and hope the revision will enable you to accept this version of the manuscript.

We look forward to hearing from you and thank you for your valuable and constructive comments.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf