Distributed High-Density Anchor (Cable) Support Force Monitoring System Research

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article combines the traditional single-point anchor support force monitoring method to design a distributed high-density anchor (cable) support force monitoring system and develops a low-cost anchor (cable) stress monitoring device. Some of the comments that could improve the quality of this article are listed below.

1. The article's readability requires enhancement, particularly in the abstract where the innovation and contribution should be succinctly conveyed, as the current version is excessively verbose.

2The introduction should emphasize the novelty of the paper and
compare it with existing work. Additionally, it should provide a
point-by-point summary of the research contribution.

 

3. There are grammatical errors present throughout the manuscript, necessitating careful proofreading for correction.

4. Abbreviations such as MQTT and LoRa need to be explained for better understanding.

 

5. Several mathematical notations lack explanation.

6. While the article includes necessary illustrations such as scheme designs and experimental results, their analysis within the text is lacking.

7. Readers are more interested in understanding how this article applies the Kalman filter to address the key issues rather than delving into the principles of the filter, which are readily available online.

8. Inconsistencies exist in the formatting of abbreviations, some of which are presented with lowercase initial letters, uppercase, or left unexplained.

9. The conclusion section should offer a more concise summary, focusing on the innovation and contribution of the article in simpler terms, instead of reiterating the principles of certain technologies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have presented an interesting work that is technically sound and have attempted to contribute to distributed high-density anchor (cable) support force monitoring system research. The manuscript, however, needs to be revised before it can considered for publication. Comments for revision are as follows:

The abstract is excessively long and covers too much detail. Please provide a crisp abstract that does not exceed 150 words. 

The introduction must include and provide clarity on the key contributions of the work. 

The introduction must additionally include a paragraph at the end, which elaborates on the organization of the paper for better readability. 

There are typos in figures that need thorough checking. For example, in Figure 1, Data Collector is written as Data Dollector. Similarly, in Figure 14, I assume 'stoping' was actually 'stopping.' So, images and their captions need proofreading. 

Although, the figures are cited within text, their relevance to the discussion is unclear. Additional text can be added to bring reading clarity in this aspect. This is true for all images used in the paper. Authors can also potentially add a discussions section to draw insights and state limitations which might lead to identification of scope for future work.

Figure 12 needs restructuring and potential redrawing as the figure does not communicate the author's intention. There are some directional and some un-directional arrows, which needs clarification. Also, the It is not clear what the three connections at the top with two directional arrows and one un-directional arrow mean. 

Most equations mentioned in the paper (example-equation on page 9) are not formatted neatly. Authors are requested to redo the equations to ensure they are neatly formatted

The authors are suggested to rethink about Figure 16 and 17 and consider use of graphs that provide a summary of the information provided instead of providing all the information, which may be distracting from a reader's perspective. 

The authors are requested to include limitations of this work and scope for future research in the conclusion. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have properly addressed my comments in this revision. I have no further comments.