Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In figure 2, graphs (a) and (b) are overlapping each other. 

There is a discontinuation of the text on Line 159.

Besides these two comments, excellent manuscript. It can be accepted for publication after these corrections.

Author Response

Point 1: In figure 2, graphs (a) and (b) are overlapping each other. 

Response 1: The pdf file was generated wrongly. It refers to Figure 2 repeatedly...Now the figure problems have been fixed.

Point 2: There is a discontinuation of the text on Line 159.

Response 2: Same problem as above. The pdf was generated wrongly. I didn't check the formatting carefully. The discontinuation is now fixed.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper addresses “Mapping Phonation Types by Clustering of Multiple Metrics”. The technical content and originality are good enough. The paper contains several sets of simulation results and methodology descriptions.  The authors have conducted systematic studies to investigate the effects of some parameters

 

In the paper, the descriptions and simulation procedures have shown the feature and impact to the research area. This is also a quite useful reference, which can be considered as another contribution  

The subject matter is interesting because the paper gives access to the results of this particular research. However, it cannot explains what has been done and what has been discovered clearly.

In summary, this is a piece of acceptable work but need some revisions  (see below)

1.     On line 73, the ref. no is missing

2.     The authors should add more equations to describe how the simulation results are obtained (almost no equations in the paper)

3.     The authors should put the input parameters in one table to more simulation results more readable.

4.     Figures 2a and 2b are duplicated and misplaced. The legend in Figure 3  is misplaced to cover parts of the lines. Figures 4,5 6  are too small to read.   Why Tables 1 and 2 contain figures ?  Besides, these figures are too small.  Figures 7 and 8 are also too small

Author Response

Point 1: On line 73, the ref. no is missing.

Response 1: The ref.no is added.

Point 2: The authors should add more equations to describe how the simulation results are obtained (almost no equations in the paper)

Response 2: The equations of some metrics, the definition of observations and are given.

Point 3: The authors should put the input parameters in one table to more simulation results more readable.

Response 3: I made a table on the input parameters (and their definition, symbols). And also in the definition of observations, I specified the training set.

Point 4: Figures 2a and 2b are duplicated and misplaced. The legend in Figure 3  is misplaced to cover parts of the lines. Figures 4,5 6  are too small to read.   Why Tables 1 and 2 contain figures ?  Besides, these figures are too small.  Figures 7 and 8 are also too small

Response 4: Figures 2a and 2b are now fixed. I remade the legend in Figure 3, and enlarged Figures 4,5,6,7,8.

In Table 1 and 2, I think the figures are regarded as part of the results, and so in order be more efficient in arranging the space, I made the table of figures on purpose. I'm not sure if it's acceptable to add figures in the table, but it might look much clumsy to give all the 20+ figures a singular digit.