Best Practices for Applying and Interpreting the Total Operating Characteristic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments: The manuscript introduces best practices for applying and interpreting the Total Operating Characteristic (TOC), which significantly improves the Relative Operating Characteristic (ROC). This is innovative as it addresses gaps in the literature and provides clearer guidelines for researchers. The written language is fine. However, the written logic and academics should be especially enhanced. Also, the following issues need to be noted.

Comment 1: What is the number in the Abstract that best supports the conclusion of this study?

Comment2: In Introduction,

1. The introduction is too brief.

2 . There is a significant lack of citations in the introduction of research progress on TOC and ROC, such as their related applications

3.Lines58-64， This part of the text seems to appear in the Methods/Data section

4. For Table 1,

1). It is recommended to define "best practice" to strengthen the objectives of this article

2). The description in the table is too simplified. It is recommended to add descriptions of methods/tools/data/scientific or application purposes to enhance readability

5. Specifically, the scientific problems addressed by this research, the gaps filled, research methods/pathways, interests, and research/temporal significance need to be strengthened.

Comment3: In section 2

1. Line 73, "MapBiomas" needs a brief introduction. Also, what are the criteria for data selection?

2.Lines76-77, Suggest providing a more detailed description of the quality control aspects of the selected data and its source data

3. Line 88, Please provide a detailed description of the spatial filter used here. And how does it impact the results?

4.Line98-103:

1)The commonalities and differences between the 1.4 distances need to be identified.

2)What are the calculation schemes for different distances? Suggest listing

3)Specifically, what are the selection criteria for different distances?

5. Line 123, "TOC Curve Generator software" lacks a necessary introduction

6.Line124-125, Regarding verification, please provide more detailed information and suggest listing it separately

7. The manuscript acknowledges the uncertainty in the accuracy of the MapBiomas data. This is a critical point, and the authors should consider discussing potential methods to validate or cross-check the data to strengthen their findings.

Comment 4: Please provide separate experimental sections between sections 2 and 3,

1)The verification plan needs special emphasis, especially on its data and methods.

2)It is recommended to draw a flowchart that links the data, methods, experiments/validations, and conclusions corresponding to this article to enhance its readability and logicality

Comment 5: In Section 3

1. For Figure 4

1)The annotation text in (a) and (b) is inconsistent and misleading. For example, the text annotation in (a) indicates the value at which position on which curve. The position indicated by the annotation text in b is unclear

2)What is the reason behind Patch's AUC being greater than Pixel's?

Comment 6:In Section 4

1. Section 4.1, most of the explanation about the results should go to the Results (such as Section 3) section. 

2. Section 4.2 seems to be introduced in the introduction section, as the results regarding TOC are not closely related to the theme of this study. Two notes:

1), the phrasing here could be more concise. For example, the explanation of the TOC curve interpretation could be simplified for better readability.

2). The manuscript effectively compares TOC with ROC and highlights the advantages of TOC. However, it would be beneficial to include a more detailed comparison with other existing methods to further emphasize the superiority of TOC.

3. Suggest that the discussion section clearly focus on the theme of this study, discuss the significance and limitations of this study, and provide a dialectical analysis of previous research results, e.g., discussing the limitations of previous studies in more detail to better contextualize their contributions, and explore future directions.

4. The manuscript provides practical guidelines for using TOC, which is valuable for researchers. However, the discussion on the practical implications of these guidelines could be expanded, particularly in terms of how they can be applied in different geographical contexts.

Comment 7: The conclusion is too short and should reflect the experiments, relevant results, and dialectical discussion of this study. It could be strengthened by including a brief discussion on future research directions or potential applications of the TOC in other fields.

Author Response

Responses are in the attached IGJItocResponse3.docx.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses are in the attached IGJItocResponse3.docx.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a rather interesting application of the Total Operating Characteristic (TOC) method using the example of the western Bahia Municipalities in Brazil. However, I have at least a few formal and substantive reservations regarding this text.
Even at the abstract stage (lines 14, 15, 16), the impersonal construction of sentences draws attention—an approach used in many parts of the text (lines 57, 60, 76, 88, 89, 98, 123, 128, 131, 181, 184, 191, 215, 220, 221, 226, 227, 231, 237, 281, 298, 334, 338). These sentences should be reformulated in the passive voice.
The introduction is very concise and mainly dedicated to describing the TOC and ROC procedures, but without detailed literature references—particularly noticeable in Table 1. It should explicitly state who and where the works recognized as best practices are published (references can be inserted into the table). Following the table, in my opinion, should be what is placed in point 4.2., namely the literature review (currently from lines 240 to 331). Only then should the description contained in lines 57 to 64 follow. Lines 65 to 67 add nothing and should, in my opinion, be removed from the work.
The section on methods and materials is written correctly in my opinion (except for the use of the personal form, but I have already mentioned this). The figures are quite readable.
The discussion section is also fairly correct in my opinion. The authors draw attention to their own achievements and refer to the literature. However, there are parts that demand the citation of appropriate examples (e.g., lines 216, 224)—I urge the addition of references to such places.
The conclusion's impact also needs strengthening. Besides the scientific merits of the work, it should highlight its applicability to building spatial and/or development policies for the given area. In my opinion, such a paragraph would be highly desirable.
In summary, despite the undoubted advantages of this work, its current form requires revision and amendments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have no further comments.

Author Response

Responses are in the attached IGJItocResponse3.docx.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made revisions as commented.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no further comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revisions and additions. I believe they have enhanced the article's appeal to readers as well as its clarity. I have no further comments and think the text can be published in its current form.