Study TOMAS Cyclone Using Seismic Array and Single Station
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It's interesting that this manuscript focuses on study TOMAS cyclone using array and single station. There are two major problems with this paper,
1. The horizontal coordinate text and vertical coordinate text in Figure 5 are inconsistent, and it is recommended to be expressed in a standard manner.
2. Please demonstrate in detail why the F-K analysis give better results for the azimuth estimation than the polarization analysis.
It is my opinion that the paper should be major revised by providing some theory and methodologies to support authors' discoveries, mainly devoted to improve its quality and novelty.
Author Response
Dear Applied Sciences editor and reviewers,
Thank you for your time and comments. Based on the suggestions, we revise our manuscript and mark them up using the track changes. The answers to the comments are presented below.
COMMENTS FROM THE REVIEWER 1:
- The horizontal coordinate text and vertical coordinate text in Figure 5 are inconsistent, and it is recommended to be expressed in a standard manner.
Answer: We redraw the diagram to ensure consistent text.
- Please demonstrate in detail why the F-K analysis give better results for the azimuth estimation than the polarization analysis.
Answer: We added the azimuth estimate error definition in Line 250 - 255 to show that the F-K analysis has smaller error than the single station using the polarization analysis. The small estimation error ensures a better azimuth observation.
It is my opinion that the paper should be major revised by providing some theory and methodologies to support authors' discoveries
Answer: Since the processing methods used in the manuscript are not invented in this work, we add more detailed descriptions of the methods instead of the formulas in the methodology section.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper processed the continuous seismic data from the YL array and four AU stations using both F-K and polarization analysis, and looked at the relationships between secondary microseisms, cyclones, and swell as well as the differences between the two approaches. The work is interesting and valuable. I have two suggestions.
1) The paper title should be more specific reflecting the contents. It should include the adopted method, the research subject, and the data sources. As to the data source, it is better to emphasize the “station”, is it " seismological station"?
2) The format of the paper is awful. Please carefully check: inconsistent spacing , wrong indentation(Line 85), blank line (Line 252)........
3) Considering the literature cited, recent study is not well reviewed, and it does not reflect the state-of-art research background.
Author Response
Dear Applied Sciences editor and reviewers,
Thank you for your time and comments. Based on the suggestions, we revise our manuscript and mark them up using the track changes. The answers to the comments are presented below.
COMMENTS FROM THE REVIEWER 2:
1) The paper title should be more specific reflecting the contents. It should include the adopted method, the research subject, and the data sources. As to the data source, it is better to emphasize the “station”, is it " seismological station"?
Answer: We have specified the data type in the title.
2) The format of the paper is awful. Please carefully check: inconsistent spacing , wrong indentation(Line 85), blank line (Line 252)........
Answer: We have checked and revised the text.
3) Considering the literature cited, recent study is not well reviewed, and it does not reflect the state-of-art research background.
Answer: We have added the relevant citations to the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed most of the comments raised by the reviewers satisfactorily. Now, the manuscript is well written and the topic interesting and worth of investigation.I think it can be accepted as it is.
