Performance Prediction of Rolling Bearing Using EEMD and WCDPSO-KELM Methods
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Linguistically, needs to be reworked - both in terms of spelling and grammar. Reference should be included only after a blank.
- Abbreviations are sometimes not sufficiently explained (LSSVM, SVD, EEMD).
- Some equations are not structured in a uniform way (see equations 3-5).
- Functionality of the KELM is not described, only its optimization.
- Figure 2 and 3: Source reference to the picture is missing. This is certainly not self-made.
- Figure 2: The figure looks rather unprofessional with the arrows.
- Figure 4 and 5: What do a), b) and c) stand for? Which test runs are evaluated here?
o Please make direct comparison of the different feature indicators in one figure.
- The structure of the paper is poor. Why is the EEMD not explained until chapter 5.2.3? The classical structure of a paper (Introducion, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion) is not followed.
- Chapter 5.3: Why are the parameters set like this here? Seems arbitrary to me at first glance, with no visible justification.
- It is not at all clear to me how and on what is being trained. What is the goal here that the trained algorithm is supposed to fulfill?
- I am missing the comparison of the WCDPSO-KELM to other ML methods.
- I do not see the described verification of the algorithm (see end of chapter 5), because no alternatives to the WCDPSO-KELM are presented.
- The paper seems very listlessly written, without a clear goal of the method presented here.
- The necessary basics of rolling bearing technology are missing, there is no visible reference to the example rolling bearing
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- Do an English review.
- There are several situations where space is required between words or quotations.
- The list of references needs to be adjusted. Some are out of standard.
- Suggestion of some related works:
- https://doi.org/10.3390/en13133481
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-016-2217-8
- Citations need to be adjusted to the journal's standard.
- At the beginning of the section must have a preamble.
- All acronyms must be defined in the text.
- Equation 8 is out of bounds.
- Figures with repeated images could optimize.
- Restructure the article. Chapter 4 is too short.
- Rearrange the tables.
- Make a brief comparison with the results of methods with the same purpose.
- Improve how emulated bearing degradation.
- Regarding the results, there is no concrete statistical analysis.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Title:
- The title is grammatically not correct. Please revise and improve.
Abstract:
- The abstract needs a careful revision from the language.
- More specific information about the conducted research should be presented.
- The end of the abstract remains rather general. Please present more specific take-home messages.
Keywords:
- The selection of the keywords is appropriate.
Comments:
- The first part of the introduction contains a lot of language mistakes. Please revise the entire manuscript carefully. In the current stage, it does not reach an acceptable level and the readability greatly suffers from that.
- The entire introduction should be improved.
- A better introduction into AI and machine learning approaches in tribology should be presented. In this regard, you may refer to: “The use of artificial intelligence in tribology—A perspective”
- The novelty of the paper should be better worked out.
- Section 2 reads rather long and should be shortened. In addition, more references should be included.
- The sub-headings of the chapters included in section 3 are very similar. This is somehow confusing.
- Figure 2 should be improved.
- Figure 3 is a repetition of a part of Figure 2. Please avoid these duplications.
- On which base have you selected the presented working conditions?
- Please improve the caption of Figure 4. The same holds true for Figure 5 and Figure 6. Besides the caption, also the layout of all figures should be improved.
- The same holds true for all subsequent figures.
- The layout of Table 3 should be improved.
- The is no scientific discussion in the manuscript. This aspect must be greatly extended to make the article publishable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you very much for revising the article. The quality has certainly improved after the first round of revisions.
- Please replace "method" by "methods" in the title.
- The captions still need some further improvement.
- Figure 5 and Figure 6 could be combined in one figure.
- The same holds true for Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
