Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article presents a study on the establishment of a linear influence model and AI convergence plan for the 3D digital transformation of railway surroundings. While the results of the study appear promising, the article has several drawbacks that need to be addressed.

Firstly, the referencing in the article is weak, with many references lacking DOI numbers. This impairs the credibility of the study and makes it difficult for readers to verify the sources used.

Secondly, the Introduction section lacks distinct paragraphs with clearly defined research objectives (ROs), research questions, study motivations, a well-referenced problem statement, and a distinguished novelty. This makes it difficult for readers to understand the purpose of the study and its contribution to the field.

Thirdly, there is no literature review section, which is essential to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing studies and research in the field. This makes it difficult to understand the context and background of the study.

Fourthly, the article lacks flowcharts and graphical abstracts, which would have helped to clearly present the results and findings of the study.

Lastly, the results of the study are promising but the data is improperly organized, making it difficult for readers to understand the results.

 

In conclusion, while the study has potential, it would benefit from significant revisions in its referencing, introduction, literature review, and presentation of results. The authors should also consider including flowcharts and graphical abstracts to make the results more accessible and understandable to readers (with proper acknowledgement and author contribution).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Title of the paper: "Establishment of a linear influence model and AI convergence plan through the 3D digital transformation of railway surroundings"

 

    As a researcher working on the same field, I am impressed by the technique introduced in the paper, because it sheds new light on the earlier results of several authors and obviously can be successfully used in practice. From this point of view, the subject of the paper fits well with the scope of the journal (Drones).

 

The paper is ended with numerical simulations that corroborate the theoretical results.

This manuscript contains new ideas and good results that help other researchers.

The decision is too minor revision it for publication in the "Drones".

 

Therefore, I recommend publishing this work after taking these points into account.

1-The English writing of the paper is required to be improved. Please check the manuscript carefully for typos and grammatical errors. I found some typos and grammatical errors within this manuscript, which have been excluded from my review.

2-In the introduction, the authors did not provide a strong motivation for the paper and the obtained results. In addition, they should discuss the main contributions of their work in detail after the motivation part. Then they should summarize the main structure of their paper in brief at the end of the introduction.

3-The introduction needs to be improved by the recent developments in the field as well as its applications. For this purpose, the authors can add the following references to enrich the introductory section:

*Numerical different methods for solving the nonlinear biochemical reaction model‏, International Journal of Applied and Computational Mathematics, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 1-17, 2019.‏

*Numerical Simulation for a High-Dimensional Chaotic Lorenz System Based on Gegenbauer Wavelet Polynomials, Mathematics, 11(2), 472, 2023.

*4-Future recommendations should be added to assist other researchers to extend the presented research analysis.

Sincerely Yours

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

None