Field Experiments of Distributed Acoustic Sensing Measurements

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments are in the .doc file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks very much. We have modified the manuscript according to the comments. The response is in the attachment. Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In manuscript photonics-3284782, The authors demonstrate the potential of DAS for monitoring bridge operating conditions and structural health. Since only the most common telecommunication fibers were used, this work can be more easily transferred into other scenarios. The current manuscript is well-structured and solid,  and it would be more worthy of publication if it could be further revised in a reader-friendly manner:

(1) The authors need to clarify the frequency range of their filtering operation during the data processing. Why did they set such values?

(2) The Results and Discussion section is slightly bulky and lacks a hierarchy. It would be nice if the authors could add subheadings to make it easier for readers to understand.

(3) It would be nice if the authors consider adding the latest literature in their introduction section so that the readers can understand the importance of this work more efficiently.

Author Response

Thanks very much. We have modified the manuscript according to the comments. The response is in the attachment. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents interesting results of field experiments with distributed acoustic sensing measurements.

After a detailed study of the text, it can be concluded that in terms of factual content, the article does not have serious shortcomings and provides comprehensive information on the given issue.

Since a large number of measurement channels were scanned (8704 data channels in space), the reader would undoubtedly welcome more detailed information about what measuring and computer technology was used to scan and further process this data. I recommend adding at least brief information on this issue to the article.

From the point of view of formal editing, it would be good to make some minor adjustments so that the text meets the requirements of the template:

Figures should be cited in the text as "Figure X", which is used somewhere, and somewhere else it is "Fig.X" (eg lines 82, 107 and many others).

A "hyphen" should be used to separate reference numbers in square brackets, not a "dash" (line 40 et seq.).

The notation in References does not correspond to the MDPI style, especially in the notation of authors' names, it must be modified according to the template.

I would also recommend improving the quality of all Figures if technically possible.

Author Response

Thanks very much. We have modified the manuscript according to the comments. The response is in the attachment. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to thank the authors of "Field Experiments of Distributed Acoustic Sensing Measurements" by Haiyan Shang et. al. for their revisions, which have strengthened the manuscript considerably. The updated introduction does a much better job of placing this work in context, clearly highlighting how this study contributes to distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) for infrastructure monitoring. The added references and expanded background make it clear how this work stands apart from other DAS studies.

 

Key terms are now defined, and the data processing steps—such as normalization and visualization choices—are well explained, making the approach easier to follow. The authors have also improved the quality and readability of the figures. The higher resolution, along with standardized color schemes and labels, helps bring out the details in the data, making the figures more intuitive and informative. Including units and labels in the color scales of these visuals significantly enhances the data’s readability.

 

The authors have improved the scientific precision of their language throughout, addressing ambiguous terms and strengthening their conclusions with appropriate references solicited. Their adjustments reflect a clear effort to ensure accuracy and transparency in their findings, which now feel fully supported and ready for publication. This version of the manuscript meets the standards expected for Photonics.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx