Research on Data-Driven Drilling Safety Grade Evaluation System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper discusses a data-driven approach for drilling safety evaluation. Though the topic is important for Processes journal, the paper in its current state is not meriting a publication. This is based on the following reasoning:
- The introduction section discusses a Landmark software, but it is not clear how it is connected to the whole text given the outlined limitations. If this is a reference to prior work, a paragraph is too extensive with the whole description.
- What is the message of Figure 1?
- Line 36. Please remove the square parentheses after the reference. This mistprint is repeated through the text, so please update all the occurrences of this type.
- Line 53. What is BHA? Please explain
- Please rephrase the sentence on line 62. As it is now, it follows that the angle is the main principle of a model, which is confusing.
- Line 66. It is written that equation (1) is modified. In this way, which is the original one?
- Line 90. Please rephrase the last sentence of the paragraph, as it is not connected to the whole text.
- The title of Figure 4 is confusing. What is buckling?
- Equation (2) seems to refer to the soft rod model? Please be more specific
- Line 126. What exactly is meant by "deeply integrated"?
- Section 4.1 discusses the data acquisition and feature engineering. As it is written that the data originates from the field measurements, it is unclear why the physical model has been introduced in the previous section. Please explain
- Though the title of the paper promises a data-driven approach, very little is discussed with respect to actual data-driven algorithms and their description. The authors have used K-means++ clustering approach, but surely there are more. The reviewer understands that a feasibility study may be out of the scope of current work, but it is at least worthwhile to discuss the alternatives.
- Figure 7c, Figure 8c and Figure 9c are not scientific and, in the opinion of the reviewer, need to be removed.
- Why are there only three risk levels introduced? The authors need to elaborate on this and also discuss the consequences of each of these levels.
- The conclusion section seems incomplete. The authors should clarify more explicitly the limitations of their study and discuss what specifically has been done according to the structure of the manuscript.
Therefore, I recommend the major revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview
Manuscript Number: processes-3746652
Research on data-driven drilling safety grade evaluation system
There are some questions and remarks to be answered:
- In the abstract, authors should present obtained data.
- Presentation of literature citation in text should be uniform.
- The quality of Fig. 1 should be enhanced.
- Authors should provide the error analysis and explain how calibration and validation of proposed models were performed.
- There is also a lack of comparison of experimental data with predicted data in simulation.
- The quality of Fig. 5 should be improved.
- Authors should explain the scientific novelty of this publication.
- How the presented method could be applied in real life.
- Authors should compare the results obtained with literature to prove that the chosen method is much better than what is usually used.
- Graphs in Fig. 7-9 should be improved.
- Authors should present the obtained data in Conclusions.
- References should be enhanced with additional literature positions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have provided a thoughtful response to all the comments, but unfortunately, some of them have not been implemented in the revised version. This in particular refers to Comment 6, comment 9, comment 13, etc.
It is a reminder to the authors that all the comments need to be processed similarly. I.e., if there is a proposed improvement, it needs to be a part of the text rather than just mentioned in the cover letter.
Therefore, I recommend the revision
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors were asked to add additional references, but their number remained unchanged.
Furthermore, the titles of Figures 7-9 should be more informative.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
