Geological and Mineralogical Mapping Based on Statistical Methods of Remote Sensing Data Processing of Landsat-8: A Case Study in the Southeastern Transbaikalia, Russia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 Comments and suggestions for Authors: 

1. Create a flowchart that depicts all the steps of data processing in sequential order for greater clarity and ease of understanding. 

2. Explain why channels 1 and 9 were not used in your study on line 180.

3. Line 186: Check the reference position; it should be Landsat data [45].

4. The geological setting section is quite long; make it short by focusing on the main points of your study area related to the purpose of the study.

5. Overall, some main sections need to be cut down or shortened as much as possible, which could be a smart way to introduce your ideas with fewer words.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper aims to present the suitability of Landsat 8 for mapping geographic and mineralogical properties. This paper is overall well written and the analysis is robust with the consideration of various statistical processing algorithms. I believe this paper is a good one and can be potentially accepted after revisions.

The introduction should be rewritten since authors have not explicitly presented the research gap through the literature review. Authors have presented the work on Landsat-8 in line 54, by referring many references. I do not support this. Authors have to clearly analyse such literature for generating specific gaps. Meanwhile, what kinds of factors affecting the analysis and mapping? Please also consider the existing methods of vis-nir in the papers:

A Vis‐NIR Spectral Library to Predict Clay in Australian Cotton Growing Soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 82(6), 1347-1357.

Mapping cation exchange capacity using a quasi-3d joint inversion of EM38 and EM31 data. Soil and Tillage Research, 200, 104618.

In Section 3.1, please provide the basic information of the weather, in particular, the cloud cover. Moreover, how about the image resolution?

In Section 3, please add a framework to show how you select, processing the image and data.

In Figure 3, please add the legend of different colours. The same question for other images.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript "Geological and mineralogical mapping based on statistical methods of remote sensing data processing Landsat-8: a case study in the Southeastern Transbaikalia, Russia" by Igor Nafigin, Venera Ishmukhametova, Stepan Ustinov, Vasily Minaev and Vladislav Petrov was submitted for peer review. I read the submitted manuscript with great interest. The author turned to a very topical issue: formation of a geological and mineralogical map using satellite remote sensing data. The authors chose the Southeastern Transbaikalia region, located in Russia, as the object of the study.

 

From my point of view, the authors have done a very good study, the manuscript is replete with a large amount of demonstration material, but at the same time there are minor flaws that worsen the manuscript and reduce its quality.

From my point of view, a number of changes should be made to the manuscript that will improve its quality, enhance the ease of perception of the presented material and increase the interest of the reader.

 

1.) From my point of view, acronyms and abbreviations cannot be used in keywords if these expressions are not fixed. Also, so-called repetitions are not desirable, that is, initially writing the full name, and then an acronyms or abbreviation. If the acronyms or abbreviations are fixed expressions, then their use is sufficient, if not, then the full name or expression.

2.) The manuscript has a very extensive and sufficient list of references with a very good geography of citations. The depth of the study of the issue by the authors is confirmed with the analysis of articles dating back to 1977. This confirms the continuing interest in this issue. But at the same time, I would like to note that the list of references has a very low percentage of sources no older than 5 years (no more than 16% in total). The list of references is intended to demonstrate the depth of the material of the author's study, the relevance and interest of their research.

2.1.) The depth of study is demonstrated with the number of references - is enough.

2.2.) Relevance – with the availability of research in recent years – is not enough.

2.3.) Interest – with the availability of research by scientists from different countries - is enough.

I would recommend authors to additionally include 5 - 7 research papers on the topic and to reflect them in the list of references. This would increase the percentage of papers not older than 5 years to 20-22%, which would be enough with such a total number of cited articles.

3.) I would recommend avoiding group references [5-28] or [26, 208 27, 44, 54-59]. From my point of view, allowed up to three [51-53]; more than three references are not acceptable and must be deciphered. Each paper you refer is unique and the studies you refer deserve more proper and careful review to demonstrate (and prove) its importance for the current research. It is necessary to demonstrate in detail the essence of each study and their need for your work. From my point of view, citation shows the reader to the depth of the material study and each article, to which the authors refer, proves their statement. It is advisable to make references after each statement. Thus, you avoid group references and locally demonstrate to the reader the uniqueness of the reference, and in general the depth of study of the material. Group references need to be separated.

4.) At the end of the introduction, there is no conclusion on the analysis carried out. This conclusion allows to characterize the actual question posed, the purpose of the study and the tasks to be solved to achieve this goal. For example: Analyzing the above, it can be noted that ... is a very topical issue. Therefore, the purpose of this study is ... and to achieve this, it is necessary to solve the following tasks: 1); 2); ... Such a conclusion allows the reader to understand the vector of the study, and the authors to correctly formulate the conclusions.

5.) Who made Figure 1? If this is the author's merit, then it is necessary to indicate: done by the authors; if this is a borrowed drawing, then it is necessary to indicate the source as the authors did in Figure 2.

6.) From my point of view, Figure 1 shows very small signs of the geographical division of the territory. If it is possible to increase it in some way, then it should be done. Such a change will enhance the ease of perception of the material by the reader. This remark is of a recommendatory nature.

7.) As far as I understand, Figure 2 is a detailing of a certain section from Figure 1. If so, then it is necessary to indicate this relationship to make it clear to the reader.

8.) In the presence of a perfectly performed study, from my point of view, the conclusions look very blurry. This remark is caused by a shortcoming indicated in remark (4) and arose due to the lack of a clear statement of goals and objectives. Conclusions should be short and concise: Installed dependency...; proven possibility; and so on.

8.1) The information posted in line 571-574 is methods

8.2.) Lines 574-576 are the statement of the problem and the object of research

8.3) Lines 576-581 are results and discussions 

8.4) Line 582 "using the fuzzy logic model" is methods too. In this line, only "a prospectivity map for the discovery of minerals was generated" refers to the conclusions.

8.5) Actually the conclusions start from Line 585

8.6) At the same time, I would strongly recommend the authors to exclude from the conclusions the information placed in lines 596-599, since the boundary conditions, permissible values, restrictions are specified in the methods section. From my point of view, the placement of this kind of information in the conclusions slightly underestimates the degree of research. In this regard, I would recommend the authors to change the conclusions, make them briefer and more concise, transfer information related to other sections. And clearly formulate conclusions, for example: 

Based on the study 

(1) a map of the prospects for the discovery of minerals has been formed

...

(2) and so on.

 

Resume: From my point of view, the authors conducted an excellent scientific study on a fairly topical issue. In general, the manuscript is of scientific and practical interest and therefore, in my opinion, can be published in the open press. The authors need to eliminate the minor comments indicated above.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

N/A

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript "Geological and mineralogical mapping based on statistical methods of remote sensing data processing Landsat-8: a case study in the Southeastern Transbaikalia, Russia" by Igor Nafigin, Venera Ishmukhametova, Stepan Ustinov, Vasily Minaev and Vladislav Petrov was submitted for re-review.

From my point of view, the authors have done a very good study. The manuscript is replete with a large amount of demonstration material. The authors made the necessary changes to the manuscript in accordance with the indicated comments, which significantly improved its quality, increased the ease of perception of the presented material and increased the interest of the reader.

I think that the manuscript can be published in the open press in present form.