A Lightweight Multi-Label Classification Method for Urban Green Space in High-Resolution Remote Sensing Imagery
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
|
Response 1: Revised. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have taken into account that in the original text we did not express our work objectives clearly enough and had too many keywords. Therefore, in the abstract of the revised version, we revised the abstract from line 15, state the aim of our work, and reduced it appropriately. In the keywords, we replaced transformer with lightweight model. |
|
Comments 2: Introduction-It is necessary to reduce the introduction and try to simplify the very complex terminology. State the main hypothesis and goal of the work.Use more international sources, e.g. European, on the benefits of green areas, as well as on the safety of green areas for humans and animals. |
|
Response 2: Revised.We have revised the original text from line 32 onwards with regard to the benefits of urban green spaces for humans and animals, as well as other aspects, by adding a large number of relevant non-Chinese literature references. At the same time, in view of the excessive content of the introduction, we have simplified the content of the article starting from line 54 of the original text, and simplified some complex terms. We have also stated the main hypothesis and goal of the work according to the requirements, and have made specific emphasis after line 103 of the original text. |
|
Comments 3: Related work - Try to shorten this chapter |
|
Response 3: Revised.We shortened one paragraph in the dataset from the beginning of 134 while keeping the overall meaning of the original text unchanged |
|
Comments 4: Attempt - Try to shorten this chapter |
|
Response 4: Revised.We simplified the very beginning of the evaluation section and simplified the first paragraph of the subsection Classification Performance while keeping the context intact. |
|
Comments 5: Discussion-Expand the chapter, there is a lack of literature sources |
|
Response 5: Revised.We have added a comparison of the results of the study with those in the existing literature in the opening section of the Discussion section; as well as a detailed explanation of the experimental results, an exploration of their significance and implications, an explanation of why they occurred, and the addition of literature sources |
|
Comments 6: The summary is too exact |
|
Response 6: Revised.We addressed the problem in the conclusion section by revising the first paragraph to focus more on summarizing and refining the study as a whole, rather than analyzing and explaining the results in detail. |
|
Comments 7: Reference. Supplement with at least 10 new references from the European continent |
|
Response 7: Revised.In response to the problem of too little European literature in the literature of this paper, we have added no less than 10 new European literature when revising the article would result in fewer literature citations |
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
|
Point 1:English language fine. No issues detected |
|
Response 1:Thank you for recognizing this article |
|
5. Additional clarifications |
|
None |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author(s),
The classification of urban green spaces is a crucial aspect of urban planning and management and one that is of relevance across the globe.
Your paper's technical and structural quality is good, and your results are satisfying.
The research findings were presented in the context of related literature, with suggestions for future research and the results expressed in clear language.
I believe that the paper can be published in its present form.
Best regards
Author Response
|
Comments 1:NO |
|
Response 1: Thank you for recognizing this article |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper makes a significant contribution to the field of urban ecology and remote sensing technology. The strength of the paper lies in its rigorous methodology, clear presentation of results, and the relevance of its findings to the broader scientific community. The paper also makes a commendable job in addressing the challenges of classifying complex urban green spaces in high-resolution images, an issue that has been problematic in previous studies. The proposed method offers a potential solution to this problem, which increases the paper's impact.
Comparison of available and proposed methods provides a practical demonstration of results, further strengthening the paper's contributions. The authors' discussion of the limitations of their study and suggestions for future research are honest and constructive.
Author Response
|
Comments 1:NO |
|
Response 1: Thank you for recognizing this article |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been improved according to the given recommendations. I have no additional comments.
