Ship Classification Based on AIS Data and Machine Learning Methods
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper introduces a ship-type classification model based on machine learning. A classification study is presented in order to study the ship behavior within the confines of the Changhua Wind Farm Channel.
1. The presentation of tables must be improved (remove some borders).
2. Improve the presentation of some equationes and mathematical writing (for example, in Eq. (1) put "Length" and "Beam" in roman style).
3. The exploratory analyzes presented in Table 3 and Figures 6-7 should be expanded, those statistics and plots are very informative. Explain in more detail characteristics of the data.
4. The code used on the paper should be made available to the readers.
5. What disadvantages does the methodology used have? This should also be covered in depth in the paper.
6. Section 5 (Conclusions and Future Work) should be expanded by adding comment on the research gaps and research objectives.
Author Response
On behalf of my co-authors and myself, I would like to extend our sincerest gratitude for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We deeply appreciate the insightful and constructive feedback provided by the reviewer on our manuscript titled “Ship Classification Based on AIS Data in Changhua Wind Farm Channel” (ID: electronics-2745211). We have meticulously reviewed all comments and have made comprehensive revisions accordingly. These changes have been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript for ease of review. The author's response is in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease find my comments in the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
On behalf of my co-authors and myself, I would like to extend our sincerest gratitude for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We deeply appreciate the insightful and constructive feedback provided by the reviewer on our manuscript titled “Ship Classification Based on AIS Data in Changhua Wind Farm Channel” (ID: electronics-2745211). We have meticulously reviewed all comments and have made comprehensive revisions accordingly. These changes have been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript for ease of review. The author's response is in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsi am grateful for the opportunity to review your manuscript. i offer the following for your consideration:
- i invite you to consider removing the reference to a specific water channel (in this case, the Changhua Wind Farm Channel) in your title. in my opinion, doing so would potentially increase the readership of your paper, when it is eventually published.
- please expand the reference to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, in the first paragraph of section 3 ('data preparation and analysis').
- likewise, please express 'nautical miles' in its expanded form (spell out the words); do note that the abbreviated form is in small letters without capitalisation ('nm' and not 'NM' (the latter approximates Newton-metres of torque)). this occurs in section 3.2.
Comments on the Quality of English Language- in the fourth paragraph of your Introduction, please replace "on the contrary" with "in contrast". do check if this phrase is erroneously used elsewhere in your manuscript.
Author Response
On behalf of my co-authors and myself, I would like to extend our sincerest gratitude for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We deeply appreciate the insightful and constructive feedback provided by the reviewer on our manuscript titled “Ship Classification Based on AIS Data in Changhua Wind Farm Channel” (ID: electronics-2745211). We have meticulously reviewed all comments and have made comprehensive revisions accordingly. These changes have been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript for ease of review. The author's response is in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been considerably improved. I recommend its publication in its current form.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed all my comments.
