A Crack Width Measurement Method of UAV Images Using High-Resolution Algorithms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is an advanced study of AI-based defect detection technology that has been actively studied recently. The manuscript presents an interesting topic, but the comments below can be considered to improve it.

 

Structurally, the manuscript requires some correction. For example, some paragraphs are too short, and others are too long. It hurts the readability of the paper.

 

Section 2.1 is more like a review rather than a method. The future readers should want to see more descriptions about how you did it, instead of justifying your selection of the method. In other words, a more detailed description of Figure 1 would be appreciated.

 

Section 3.3 presents an insightful result, but, there is a lack of interpretation of cases with relatively large errors.

 

In addition, 4. Conclusions are more like a summary. So please try to draw a list of the conclusions and present an in-depth description about them.

Author Response

We are grateful to the Reviewer 1 for his/her critical comments and useful suggestions, which have helped us to improve our manuscript considerably. As indicated in the following responses, we have incorporated all these comments into the revised version of our manuscript.

The reply to the comment is attached as a file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The abstract part does not reflect the innovation of this article, so it needs to further refine the content to reflect the innovative work done by the authors.

 2. This journal is an international journal. In the introduction, only Europe, the United States and South Korea are described. Is it not important to maintain the structure in other parts of the world?

 3. Whether formulas (1), (2) and (3) refer to previous achievements needs to be explained.

Author Response

We are grateful to the Reviewer 2 for his/her critical comments and useful suggestions, which have helped us to improve our manuscript considerably. As indicated in the following responses, we have incorporated all these comments into the revised version of our manuscript.

The reply to the comment is attached as a file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

N/A