A Novel Combined Model for Short-Term Emission Prediction of Airspace Flights Based on Machine Learning: A Case Study of China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is an interesting article combining the issues of transport, environmental protection, data science and machine learning. I find this article valuable and well prepared. Detailed comments:
- The article does not describe where exactly the ADS-B data was obtained. If your own receiver was used, please describe the receiver, antenna, location of the receiver, antenna (mounting height, position in relation to obstacles), software used for data collection. If you have obtained data from the aviation administration, please include this information.
- Line 95 - useless space before the comma,
- Lines 231-235 - different line spacing than in the rest of the text, a similar problem occurs in lines 300-304
- Line 361: the disk capacity unit is GB, the Python version numbering should contain a period (3.7).
- Why was Python 3.7 used when version 3.10 (or Python Anaconda 3.9) is currently available?
- All libraries and modules used for machine learning must be quoted and included in the bibliography, in accordance with the guidelines for citing these libraries / modules, e.g. for scikit-learn: https://scikit-learn.org/stable/about.html#citing-scikit-learn XGBoost: http://citebay.com/how-to-cite/xgboost/ etc. You should appreciate the authors who make their work freely available to the community for research purposes.
- Lines 395-396, 418-419: spaces should be standardized before units (in the opinion of the reviewer, there should be spaces between the value and the unit).
- Figure 14 (line 496) - yellow points on the charts is unreadable on e-book readers
- Figure 15 (line 510) - if possible, please put a p-values for the correlation coefficients (e.g. upper triangle correlation coefficients, lower triangle p-values). Currently, the graph contains redundant information - every value outside the main diagonal appears twice.
- There are many punctuation errors in the bibliography, missing spaces, shifted fonts - please arrange strictly according to the MDPI requirements.
Good luck in making the corrections!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to the Author
Dear authors
The corrections comments are based on the manuscript you were followed.
Concern # 1: Rewrite the abstract with a focus on the research problem and your contribution.
Concern # 2: In line 77 "There is still no effective method for short-term accurate prediction...." justify this statement depending on the academic literature.
Concern # 3: Put Figure 8 and its discussion in the first paragraph 3.
Concern # 4: Make evaluation and validation for paper results. And do benchmark with others papers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic of the paper is interesting and the proposed approach is confirmed with the presented results. However, my main objection is the writing that needs to be improved. Many sentences are too long. Also, many sentences are written like instructions (manual) which is not suitable style for journal articles. Sentence written in lines 116-120 is example of both these aforementioned problems. Thus, I recommend to make major revision of the paper to improve the writing.
There are multiple abbreviations in the abstract without their full form at the place of their first appearance.
Line 310 - typo: Talor (should be Taylor)
In multiple places (one example is line 138), after the equation a new paragraph is started with Where... - this should be continuation of the sentence not a new sentence, nor a new paragraph
Figure 5 - it is not clear what data are shown in sense, are the shown data from all flight during the day, from some of the flight or something else. Next, fuel flow rate - does the graph 5.f corresponds to actual (exact) values or values obtained via used model. Same question for the emissions. It is not clear from the given text.
Better quality of the figures would be preferable.
Figure 6 - is there explanation for the periodic behaviour of the emissions. It is important property, but there is no logical explanation of it in the text.
Figure 13 - legend should be reversed to match the order of lines at the top of the figure (the order of the legend should be 15min, 30min, 1h).
Timescale given in figures 10-12 is confusing at the first glance. It would be much better if the same timescale is used in these three figures.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The presented article is very interesting, the correct methodology is used and I have no fundamental comments on the contribution.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The answers provided by the authors are satisfying. But, the authors clearly missed the "English language and style" evaluation given in the report 1: Extensive editing of English language and style required. This needs to be done to provide a proper presentation of the otherwise good paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
