Forest Single-Frame Remote Sensing Image Super-Resolution Using GANs

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We highly value your feedback, and we greatly appreciate the comments you provided. In response to your suggestions, please refer to the detailed responses below, as well as the corresponding modifications highlighted in the resubmitted document.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We will carefully review the introduction section to ensure that it provides sufficient background information to support the research and that all relevant references are properly cited. We will revise the introduction section accordingly when submitting the manuscript.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Thank you for your encouragement. I will certainly continue to carefully check the accuracy of the content.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

As mentioned above

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

As mentioned above

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

As mentioned above

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

As mentioned above

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: At the end of the Abstract, it is necessary to address the importance and need for this study on a global scale.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We highly appreciate the global significance of this study. We have emphasized this point in the conclusion part of the abstract, particularly in lines 25 to 27 of the first page. This will help highlight the social and scientific importance of this research and guide readers to understand its impact. This modification will be included in the submitted paper.

Comments 2: The introduction is very well reasoned, but I suggest adding the importance of this study to the world at the end of the introduction. This would arouse the interest of readers more.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We consider this a very constructive recommendation that will help pique the reader's interest and underscore the importance of the study. We have added an explanation of how the research can positively impact the world in the last part of the introduction, specifically in lines 7 to 11 and35-38 of the third page. This will better highlight the social and global significance of the research. This modification will be included in the submitted paper.

Comments 3: The methodology is well founded. The authors really did a good job. Congratulations.

Response 3: Thank you for your encouragement. I will certainly continue to carefully check the accuracy of the content.

Comments 4: The conclusion is well founded, together with the good quality of the English used in the text, which is clear and understandable. Congratulations.

Response 4: Thank you for your encouragement. I will certainly continue to carefully check the accuracy of the content.

Comments 5: It is necessary to convert the formatting of references required by the journal.

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestions. I have expanded the content related to the background information and made the necessary adjustments to the reference format in accordance with the journal's requirements.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: English language fine. No issues detected.

Response 1:  Thank you for your feedback. We greatly appreciate your encouragement and recognition. We will continue to work diligently to ensure the language quality of the manuscript, aiming to provide a better research experience.

5. Additional clarifications

Dear Reviewer,

We have provided a detailed point-by-point explanation of the modifications made to the manuscript in the cover letter submitted through the system. If you require further clarification or have any other questions, we are readily available to provide additional information and explanations.

Best regards,

Yafeng Zhao,Shuai Zhang,Junfeng Hu.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We highly value your feedback, and we greatly appreciate the comments you provided. In response to your suggestions, please refer to the detailed responses below, as well as the corresponding modifications highlighted in the resubmitted document.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We will carefully review the introduction section to ensure that it provides sufficient background information to support the research and that all relevant references are properly cited. We will revise the introduction section accordingly when submitting the manuscript.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We will carefully review all the cited references to ensure their direct relevance to the research, maintaining high-quality citations and the accuracy of the study. We will make revisions to the cited references before submission.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Thank you for your valuable input. We will thoroughly review the research design to ensure its appropriateness and consider the suggestions of the reviewers to enhance the research design. This includes exploring better experimental methods and sample sizes. We will make revisions to the research design before submission to meet these requirements.

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We will revisit the description of the research methods to ensure they are adequately detailed and consider the reviewers' feedback to improve the methods section. This includes providing more details about the experimental process, data collection, and analysis to ensure that readers have a better understanding of our methodology. We will make revisions to the methods section before submission.

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We will reevaluate the presentation of the research results to ensure they are clearer and more comprehensible to meet the readers' needs. We plan to focus on improving the readability and interpretability of results, including figures, tables, and textual descriptions. These revisions will be incorporated before submission.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We will carefully review the conclusion section to ensure that it fully reflects the research's findings and consider the reviewers' feedback to enhance the credibility of the conclusion. We plan to provide more evidence and arguments related to the research results to support the reliability of the conclusion. These modifications will be included before submission.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: There are some grammatical errors in the text. Please revise it carefully

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable corrections. We have conducted a thorough English review of the paper and have identified some grammar errors in certain sentences in each section. We are grateful for your guidance, and these corrections will be included in the submission.

Comments 2: Line 41: Please use number (1- , 2-, 3-)

Response 2: Thank you for your advice. We have used numbers (1-, 2-, 3-) to represent items or entries in the corresponding lines on the third page, as well as, in line 13 on the fourth page, in line with your suggestion. This will help improve the structure and readability of our manuscript. These modifications will be included in the upcoming submission.

Comments 3: Novelty of this study is not clear in the last paragraph of introduction section.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revisited the final paragraph of the introduction to enhance the expression of the novelty of this research. We have modified the end of the introductory section to introduce the contributions of the study in a more concise and point-by-point manner, while expanding on the experimental results and societal contributions. This makes it clearer how the study adds new contributions to the existing literature. You can find these changes in lines 1 to 31 on the third page. These modifications will be included in the submission.

Comments 4: Related work: it seems that it is the methodology section.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable feedback. Following your reminder, we have identified some errors, specifically, some content that should have been placed in the methodology section was placed in the related work section. We have reflected on this and made necessary adjustments. We have moved the summary of the generator and discriminator from the related work section on the third page to the introduction, as shown in the revised manuscript starting from line 32 on the second page. Additionally, in the new version of the manuscript, we have moved the content related to the loss function from the related work section on the third page to the methodology section on the sixth page. Furthermore, we have expanded and improved the content of the related work section by reviewing related research based on three popular super-resolution methods in the field of deep learning. We sincerely apologize for the errors in the previous related work section and greatly appreciate your guidance. These modifications will be included in the submitted paper.

Comments 5: Please start the methodology section with a workflow (all steps of the method) and one paragraph regarding steps.

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We consider your advice to be highly important. Following your recommendations, we have added a workflow at the beginning of the methodology section to clearly outline all the steps of our research method, along with references to the corresponding sections. This will assist readers in better understanding our research design. You can find the specific content in the new version of the manuscript in the 3.1 section, Method Overview. These modifications will be included in the submission. We greatly appreciate your guidance.

Comments 6: Study area and descriptions regarding images are missed.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestions. We have added descriptions about the research area and the images in the manuscript to provide readers with a better understanding of the environment and context of our images. You can find the detailed information in lines 33 to 38 on the 12th page. Additionally, we have included an example of the research area image in the new version of the manuscript, as shown in Figure 8 on the 13th page. These modifications will be included in the submission.

Comments7: Section 5.2: it must be presented in the methodology section. It is not results.

Response 7: Thank you for your correction. We have moved section 5.2, which pertains to the experimental criteria for generated images, to the methodology section to align with the standards and requirements of academic writing. This adjustment will ensure a clear and coherent explanation of the research methods and processes to meet the needs of readers. You can find the detailed content in the new version of the manuscript's 3.5 section. These modifications will be included in the submission.

Comments 8: I would like to see output of the method in other remote sensing images. One image is not enough for validation.

Response 8: Thank you for your suggestion. Your insights are highly valuable, and we have included more remote sensing images in the experimental section of the manuscript to validate our method. This will enhance the credibility and replicability of our research. We have added additional images and corresponding validation data to meet this requirement. You can find the detailed information in Figure 10 on the 16th page of the new version of the manuscript. These modifications will be included in the submission.

Comments 9: Figures and tables’ caption is not mature. Please revise them.

Response 9: Thank you for your feedback. We have reviewed the titles of the figures and tables, as well as their related explanations. We have made modifications to provide more descriptive and accurate titles, including details about the experimental environment and results, to help readers better understand the meaning of the figures. These changes will be included in the next submission. We sincerely appreciate the suggestion you provided.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

Response 1:  Thank you for your feedback. We understand your perspective, and we will ensure a thorough English language review of the paper before submission to ensure accuracy and fluency. Additionally, if you have any further suggestions or feedback, we are very open to hearing your input to enhance the quality of the paper.

5. Additional clarifications

Dear Reviewer,

We have provided a detailed point-by-point explanation of the modifications made to the manuscript in the cover letter submitted through the system. If you require further clarification or have any other questions, we are readily available to provide additional information and explanations.

Best regards,

Yafeng Zhao,Shuai Zhang,Junfeng Hu.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We highly value your feedback, and we greatly appreciate the comments you provided. In response to your suggestions, please refer to the detailed responses below, as well as the corresponding modifications highlighted in the resubmitted document.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We will carefully review the introduction section to ensure that it provides sufficient background information to support the research and that all relevant references are properly cited. We will revise the introduction section accordingly when submitting the manuscript.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Thank you for your encouragement. I will certainly continue to carefully check the accuracy of the content.

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

Thank you for your valuable input. We will thoroughly review the research design to ensure its appropriateness and consider the suggestions of the reviewers to enhance the research design. This includes exploring better experimental methods and sample sizes. We will make revisions to the research design before submission to meet these requirements.

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We will revisit the description of the research methods to ensure they are adequately detailed and consider the reviewers' feedback to improve the methods section. This includes providing more details about the experimental process, data collection, and analysis to ensure that readers have a better understanding of our methodology. We will make revisions to the methods section before submission.

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We will reevaluate the presentation of the research results to ensure they are clearer and more comprehensible to meet the readers' needs. We plan to focus on improving the readability and interpretability of results, including figures, tables, and textual descriptions. These revisions will be incorporated before submission.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Thank you for your encouragement. I will certainly continue to carefully check the accuracy of the content.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The sentence, "In 2014, with the introduction of AlexNet, convolutional neural networks began to be applied to image super-resolution," mentions 2014 as the year of AlexNet's introduction, but this model actually achieved success in 2012..

Response 1: Thank you for your correction. You are absolutely right, and the sentence you provided eliminates the ambiguity that resulted from our earlier wording. We have modified the sentence as follows: "In 2014, Dong et al. pioneered the integration of deep learning methods into the field of image super-resolution by introducing the SRCNN model, based on AlexNet." You can find this change in lines 14-15 on the second page of the revised manuscript. This modification will be included in the submission.

Comments 2: It would be better to present the contributions of the study in a more distinct manner as bullet points at the end of the introduction section.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revisited the final paragraph of the introduction to enhance the expression of the novelty of this research. We have modified the end of the introductory section to introduce the contributions of the study in a more concise and point-by-point manner, while expanding on the experimental results and societal contributions. This makes it clearer how the study adds new contributions to the existing literature. You can find these changes in lines 7 to 37 on the third page. These modifications will be included in the submission.

Comments 3: Adding a paragraph at the end of the introduction section that outlines the structure of the study would be beneficial.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We consider your advice to be highly important. Following your recommendations, we have added a workflow at the beginning of the methodology section to clearly outline all the steps of our research method, along with references to the corresponding sections. This will assist readers in better understanding our research design. You can find the specific content in the new version of the manuscript in the 3.1 section, Method Overview. These modifications will be included in the submission. We greatly appreciate your guidance.

Comments 4: The second section is labeled as "Related work," but it lacks information on related work. This section appears to be more of a background information section.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable feedback. Following your reminder, we have identified some errors, specifically, some content that should have been placed in the methodology section was placed in the related work section. We have reflected on this and made necessary adjustments. We have moved the summary of the generator and discriminator from the related work section on the third page to the introduction, as shown in the revised manuscript starting from line 32 on the second page. Additionally, in the new version of the manuscript, we have moved the content related to the loss function from the related work section on the third page to the methodology section on the sixth page. Furthermore, we have expanded and improved the content of the related work section by reviewing related research based on three popular super-resolution methods in the field of deep learning. We sincerely apologize for the errors in the previous related work section and greatly appreciate your guidance. These modifications will be included in the submitted paper.

Comments 5: The division of words within Figure 4 and 5 is not appropriate. For example, "Sigmoid" and "conv" should be corrected.

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. We have reviewed the labels of Figure 4 and Figure 5 and have made corrections as per your advice to ensure that they are more visually appealing and accurately describe the content within the figures. These modifications will be included in the next submission.

Comments 6: Explanations for Table 2, 3, 4, and 5 should be expanded further. The interpretations of these tables are insufficient.

Response 6: Thank you for your feedback. We have reviewed the titles of the figures and tables, as well as their related explanations. We have made modifications to provide more descriptive and accurate titles, including details about the experimental environment and results, to help readers better understand the meaning of the figures. These changes will be included in the next submission. We sincerely appreciate the suggestion you provided.

Comments 7: The literature section is not adequate. Examples of similar studies from the introduction section can be further elaborated to enhance this section.

Response 7: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have expanded and improved the content in the related work section based on your recommendations. We have reviewed and summarized related research according to the three popular super-resolution methods in the field of deep learning. You can find these modifications in lines 11-35 on the fourth page. We sincerely apologize for the inadequacy in the previous version of the related work section. These changes will be included in the submission.

Comments 8: It would be more descriptive to present metric information about the results of the study in the abstract section.

Response 8: Thank you for the reviewer's advice. We strongly agree with this point, and providing metric information about the research results will make the abstract more descriptive. We have already added more specific comparative data about the research results in the abstract, including the comparison of metrics with traditional models and state-of-the-art models, to help readers better understand our findings. You can see this modification in the abstract section of the new version of the manuscript, and it will be included in the submission.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: English language fine. No issues detected.

Response 1:  Thank you for your feedback. We greatly appreciate your encouragement and recognition. We will continue to work diligently to ensure the language quality of the manuscript, aiming to provide a better research experience.

5. Additional clarifications

Dear Reviewer,

We have provided a detailed point-by-point explanation of the modifications made to the manuscript in the cover letter submitted through the system. If you require further clarification or have any other questions, we are readily available to provide additional information and explanations.

Best regards,

Yafeng Zhao,Shuai Zhang,Junfeng Hu.