An Improved Optimization Algorithm Based on Density Grid for Green Storage Monitoring System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have some major concerns such that the manuscript cannot be recommended for publication with the current version. Some problems are fundamental so substantial revisions of the work are expected. Below I will first provide my major concerns, and then minor comments will follow.
Major concerns:
l It is not necessary to intro to many details about corn assessment data and data processing algorithms without any conclusion. All the readers interested in your research, are from the academia or the related industries who have the basic knowledge. Please summarize the current research but not only list what other researchers conducted.
l It is hard to find the research gap drawn from the existing studies. It should be defined very clearly to deliver your contributions to the current research community of both agricultural management and algorithm design.
l The author shall highlight the contributions and the practical value&applications of their work clearly in Introduction or Conclusion.
l Currently, the future directions are not adequate. I believe this is the most important section which analyzes the past research work and proposes future directions. The trends within each category would be helpful for researchers.
l The effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed approach should be tested through the experiments and comparison with existing methods.
Minor comments:
l The references cited in lines 35-36 and 38 show errors.
l Please rewrite line 130-136 whose meanings are unclear.
l There are a very large number of grammatical mistakes and writing errors. Some of which will be listed in my minor comments. However, they are not exhaustive. A serious checking on the writing is needed.
n Line 178-179: The basic idea of the algorithm of the hierarchy-based clustering algorithm is relatively simple, but the algorithm must wait for the termination condition to complete as soon as it starts, so the scalability of this type of algorithm is poor.
n Line 41: Adequate, green and safe storage of corn is
n Line 42-44: At present, the system-wide nitrogen gas storage scale has reached 7 billion pounds, and this year to start 4 billion pounds of nitrogen gas storage project construction, corn is one of the most important storage varieties.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The references cited in lines 35-36 and 38 show errors.
Response 1: We have removed the references in lines 35, 36, and 38 and corrected them accordingly in the original text.
Point 2: Please rewrite lines 130-136 whose meanings are unclear.
Response 2: In response to the mentioned problem of unclear meaning in lines 130-136, we have rewritten the text and semantics of lines 130-136 and marked the revised content in red in the corresponding position in the original text.
Point 3: There are a very large number of grammatical mistakes and writing errors. Some of which will be listed in my minor comments. However, they are not exhaustive. A serious check on the writing is needed.
n Line 178-179: The basic idea of the algorithm of the hierarchy-based clustering algorithm is relatively simple, but the algorithm must wait for the termination condition to complete as soon as it starts, so the scalability of this type of algorithm is poor.
n Line 41: Adequate, green, and safe storage of corn is
n Line 42-44: At present, the system-wide nitrogen gas storage scale has reached 7 billion pounds, and this year to start 4 billion pounds of nitrogen gas storage project construction, corn is one of the most important storage varieties.
Response 3: our team apologizes for the irregular language in the manuscript. We have now worked on both language and readability, have improved the language and writing in the "English Editing" module of the MDPI journal system, and have completely revised the grammar and writing of the entire article and highlighted it in red. We truly hope to make substantial improvements at the process and language levels. Line 178-179, Line 41, and Line 42-44 have been modified.
Thanks again for your suggestions!
Reviewer 2 Report
The essay as a whole has a very good writing. The content and topic of the article are novel. The research questions are meaningful, and the author has addressed the established questions well, which can be considered a good contribution to the literature.
However, there are some minor issues. I recommend that the paper be re-examined prior to be published. I wish the authors success in their publication.
(a) The abstract can be shortened and improved. Suggest to break up the long beginning sentence. There is an incomplete sentence in the abstract without verbs: "In-depth study of corn green stor- 20 age monitoring system data, the processing requirements for real-time stream data."
(b) The paper should not assume any prior knowledge from the audience. Some basic theories can be added to article.
(c) There are a few long-running sentences (two ore more independent sentences connected improperly) in the article. Suggest to go over the article and break those long-running sentences into separate sentences. For example, lines 321-322: "After determining whether the grid is a boundary grid, the feature vector of the grid is updated, and when the user's clustering request arrives, the internal grid is processed first, and then the boundary grid is processed in the offline stage."
(e) The grammar and style of this article can be improved by a suitable proofreader.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The abstract can be shortened and improved. Suggest breaking up the long beginning sentence. There is an incomplete sentence in the abstract without verbs: "In-depth study of corn green storage monitoring system data, the processing requirements for real-time stream data."
Response 1: The abstract has been reduced and modified accordingly, and the sentence you mentioned has been modified and marked in red.
Point 2: The paper should not assume any prior knowledge from the audience. Some basic theories can be added to the article.
Response 2: For the question, you mentioned " The paper should not assume any prior knowledge from the audience. Some basic theories can be added to the article. " In the introductory section of the article, we explain the theory related to various indicators of corn storage by introducing corn and corn green storage and analyzing other researchers.
Point 3: There are a few long-running sentences (two or more independent sentences connected improperly) in the article. Suggest going over the article and breaking those long-running sentences into separate sentences. For example, lines 321-322: "After determining whether the grid is a boundary grid, the feature vector of the grid is updated, and when the user's clustering request arrives, the internal grid is processed first, and then the boundary grid is processed in the offline stage."
Response 3: You mentioned that " There are a few long-running sentences (two or more independent sentences connected improperly) in the article. Suggest to go over the article and break those long-running sentences into separate sentences." For this issue, we have already done the overall writing and grammar correction of the article under the English editing function.
For this sentence " After determining whether the grid is a boundary grid, the feature vector of the grid is updated, and when the user's clustering request arrives, the internal grid is processed first, and then the boundary grid is processed in the offline stage." has been modified.
Point 4: The grammar and style of this article can be improved by a suitable proofreader.
Response 4: Our team apologizes for the irregular language in the manuscript. Our team worked on the manuscript for a long time and repeatedly adding and removing sentences and sections apparently led to poor readability. We have now worked on both language and readability and have made improvements to the language and writing in the "English Editing" module of the MDPI journal system. After receiving feedback on the changes from the journal system, our team has considered your suggestions and made positive corrections to the language. And for all the revised parts we have highlighted them in red font and submitted the revised version of the document in the system. We truly hope to make substantial improvements in the process and language level.
Thanks again for your suggestions!
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have well addressed my concerns.
