Road Pavement Damage Detection Based on Local Minimum of Grayscale and Feature Fusion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors proposed methodology name as " Road Pavement Damage Detection Based on Local Minimum of Grayscale and Feature Fusion". Significant work has been done, but validation and comparison of results are required.Further, there are queries need to be addressed by authors in revised manuscript as follows :

1. Overall methodology chart need to be included in revised manuscript.

2. Accurate detail of images/dataset for training, testing, validation is missing. Add the details for all dataset.

3. Why authors did prediction with SVM only. It is an established practice to compare the results with various machine learning models. It is recommended to add comparison results in revised manuscript.

4. Do authors proposed methodology able to identify parameters in micrometer,milimeter etc. Kindly refer following journal where author compare prediction results with ML models :

a. https://scindeks.ceon.rs/article.aspx?artid=1451-20922002468P

5. Authors should add limitation and challenges of proposed methodology.

6.In Title authors mentioned word " Local minimum of Grayscale " Do authors applied GLCM technique ? How features are extracted.

7. Manuscript need to be strengthened in terms of proper literature review, experimentation details, comparison, and justification of results as per standard and published literature.

8. Quality of figures need to improve.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper needs to undergo revisions before it is being further considered. Some comments for the authors:

1_ Lines 11-12: they are generic. Please refine. Also, specify what is implied by the term “specific road damage". Does it apply for a certain type of distress?

2_ Lines 76-80: What are the gaps in the existing methodologies that you wish to fill? Please elaborate.

3_ Section 3 begins with a figure, is this normal for scientific papers? Please reconsider.

4_ Please elaborate further on how the content of the paper suits the journal aim. Is the developed method directly applicable from practitioners and road operators during routine pavement monitoring. Please explain how the presented framework could be incorporated in a PMS. Are there any limitations?

5_ Lines 170-172: Please briefly mention in the conclusions for what types of distresses or cracks the developed framework is privileged for (recall point No. 1).  

6_ Please refine the use of English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I do not have any further comments as authors modified manuscript accordingly.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no further comments.