Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) In this paper a reliability assessment of hybrid cable laying configurations in urban dense cable channels based on modified Weibull Distribution is presented. The main contribution is unclear from introduction. The contributions of this type of technique must added in introduction part. The technological questions must be asnwered too along this section.

2) The modified Weibull distribution assessment method must be compared under same conditions with other type of distributions and recent papers in the field.

3) A better state of art is needed to improve the novelty of the assessment with respect to others and similar solutions.

4) Table 4 must be better linked with the real operation condition data.

5) Please, add some information as to design the parameters used in your method. Several parameters appers with no explanation along the paper. Plase, improve your design methodology.

6) A picture of the real system under study must be added at introduction section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the paper is well written and structured, please incorporate the following suggestions:

 

Clarify the novelty of the modified Weibull approach. While the paper claims to use a “modified Weibull distribution,” the novelty compared to prior work using proportional hazards models and Bayesian updating is not entirely clear. The authors should explicitly state what differentiates their modification from prior applications in cable reliability.

Enhance the generalizability of findings. The study is built on data from a specific region in southern China. To increase its impact, the authors should discuss how the method might apply to different climates, regulatory environments, or cable types.

Justify prior distribution choices more robustly. Although the authors provide prior distribution parameters for β and γ values, the choice of these parameters seems somewhat ad hoc. A sensitivity analysis or additional justification based on empirical data or expert consensus would improve credibility.

Clarify MCMC configuration and convergence diagnostics. The paper uses M-H sampling with five chains and discards burn-in samples, but it lacks important convergence metrics (e.g., trace plots, Gelman-Rubin statistics). Without this, the robustness of the posterior estimates remains uncertain.

Improve result interpretability with statistical summaries. While Figures 1–4 show reliability indicators, the authors should complement these plots with confidence intervals or credible intervals to account for uncertainty in predictions, especially for critical cases near the T₀.₈₅ threshold.

Include quantitative performance comparison. A comparison of the proposed model's predictions versus classical Weibull or non-Bayesian methods using a metric like RMSE or AUC (where applicable) could highlight improvements in accuracy or robustness.

The conclusion is comprehensive but could be more actionable. Consider offering a clear set of operational guidelines (e.g., maintenance scheduling thresholds, early warning indicators) derived from the model results to assist utility operators.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor issues

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your improved work.