The Study of the Pore Structure Properties of Rocks Based on Complex Network Theory: Taking an Example of the Sandstone in the Tongnan Area in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer's comments:
- the text is full of grammatical errors and unclear sentences
- extensive editing of the English language required
- the manuscript does not follow the prescribed form (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion) (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/processes/instructions)
- the results of only one rock sample are shown
- the scientific contribution of the article is not clearly explained

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “The study of the pore structure properties of rocks based on complex network theory--- Taking an example of the sandstone in Tongnan area in China” presents an analysis of the characteristic of the pore network topology and a theoretical basis on porous seepage phenomena of microstructure mechanism. Unfortunately, the paper is disorganized and needs to be corrected extensively to avoid misunderstandings. Therefore, the following are my recommendations:

1. Abstract, Line 16and Introduction Line 40: Period is missing just before “Our results…” and “Shaina K. …”. There are many punctuation errors throughout the text. The authors should review and correct all these errors.
2. Introduction Line 41: “Shaina K. used focused ion beam scanning electron microscopy (FIB - SEM), won the micro-scale shale digital cores” Can the authors elaborate what they meant here? It’s not clear in its current form.
3. Introduction Line 43: The verb in here should be “adopt” form.
4. Introduction Line 43: Can the authors define what they mean by average here? Average of which value or number?
5. Introduction Line 47: “This marks the modern complex networks theory frame initially formed.” The authors need to rephrase this sentence because readers might have difficulty understanding what is meant here.
6. Introduction Line 51: There is unnecessary capital letter use for “robustness” here.
7. Section 2 Line 60: Can the authors elaborate on their gridding system? It will be better if the authors provide a figure showing their gridding and numbering system here because the description only describes the boundaries or extensions of nodes, but not their dimensions or numbering system.
8. Equation 1: Can the authors elaborate on how they derived this equation?
9. Figure 2 & Figure 3: What is the unit of the axis. What does P(d) stand for? On text (Line 65), P(d) is defined as a network but what is meant by that phrase is not clear because the use of P(d) on the figure is not for the just network. Also, as the authors mention percentage in the text (Line 70 and 71), it would be better to use the percentage instead of fractions here and denote the unit for distribution. Also, it would be better for readers to understand and connect the figures with the text.
10. Line 88: Space missing between “So” and “in”
11. Line 88: There is an unnecessary capital letter use for “any” here.
12. Line 102: “So the network has a positive correlation. However, the network has a negative correlation.” These two sentences are contradicting. Can the authors elaborate on what they meant here?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

There are still many grammatical errors in the manuscript, and compared to the previous version, it has not been significantly improved.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your important comment. We have asked native speakers to check the grammar of the entire manuscript and correct grammatical errors. We think the revised manuscript is a significant improvement over the previous version.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “The study of the pore structure properties of rocks based on complex network theory--- Taking an example of the sandstone in Tongnan area in China” presents an analysis of the characteristic of the pore network topology and a theoretical basis on porous seepage phenomena of microstructure mechanism. The organization and grammar of the paper improved from the first draft. However, some points still need to be addressed. Therefore, the following are my recommendations:

1. Line 56: Can the authors elaborate on choosing between average and Euler numbers to implement in their model because pore size and pore throat length are different properties? What is the main assumption of the authors here?
2. 2 and Fig. 3: The definitions of P(d) and P(k) are still not given in the text. It won't be very clear for the readers by solely looking at the figures.
3. Line 127: Colon is missing after “is” in here
4. Line 129: “So” should have a capital first letter here.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,
the manuscript has been corrected according to the reviewer's comments, but there are still grammatical errors in the text.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for making the editions on your manuscipt.