Deep Neural Network Analysis on Uplift Resistance of Plastic Greenhouses for Sustainable Agriculture
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I enjoyed reading article, it contains novelty and according to scope of the journal. I recommend to editors to publish this work in the journal after addressing some issues.
In the introduction I recommend to write about a nexus between plastic greenhouse and climate change.
The given error term in equation 1 should have to normalize and write its empirical results in the paper.
All the results must have to compare with previously published papers that are most relevant to the findings.
The ANN has also been used to for learning and optimizing the inputs in previous studies such as,
-Estimating smart energy inputs packages using hybrid optimisation technique to mitigate environmental emissions of commercial fish farms
-Building an improved artificial neural network model based on deeply optimizing the input variables to enhance rutting prediction
You may review this literature and incorporate in your study.
Best wishes with publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well prepared. Methodology is thoroughly described. Most of my comments are more of a ‘technical’ nature and do not influence the scientific quality of the article.
1. I suggest removing ‘climate change response’ from the title and ‘climate change’ from keywords. You did not study climate change influence on uplift resistance or on plastic greenhouses.
2. Lines 29-30: Are you sure that strong winds have stronger impact on the crops growing inside plastic greenhouse than on the greenhouse itself? Or is it the other way around?
3. Lines 40-41: All abbreviations should be explained when appearing in the text for the first time.
4. Line 63: Please rewrite this sentence; ‘show’=’can exhibit’. Maybe ‘Plastic greenhouses can be damaged as shown in Figure 1’ would be better.
5. Figure 1: Caption: the damage of foundation was caused by a single-span plastic greenhouse or the influence of some other factors (like wind)?
6. Line 90 and further: Please use scientific notation of units, so ‘kN m-3’ instead of ‘kN/m3’.
7. Line 92: Are you sure that soil C should be classified as ‘CL’? With 52.6% of fine passing it is fat clay, as you said. But a group symbol of fat clay, according to USCS, is CH.
8. Table 1: Please edit table 1 in the same way as the others (no vertical lines).
9. Figure 2: Caption: is it ‘number for USCS’ or ‘soil group symbol according to USCS’? ‘Chungcheongbuk-do’ should be put in the brackets.
10. Line 108: Please rephrase the first part of this sentence.
11. Figure 3: You used here the same caption as in figure 2.
12. Table 2: You should add some extra empty rows between cases and datasets o facilitate reading the table.
13. Line 263: Please explain the acronyms.
14. Figure 7: In the caption the same information is repeated twice: “Plane failure of the uplift resistance tests for soil samples A, B, and C. (a) Soil sample A (SP); (b) soil sample B (ML); (c) soil sample C (CL).” and “Results of uplift resistance test for soil sample A (USCS: SP), B (USCS: ML), and C (USCS: CL).”. Also, letters a, b and c are listed in the caption but missing from the figure. The description of horizontal axis is illegible.
15. Figure 8 hasn’t been cited in the text (or at least I haven’t found it).
16. In the discussion section you should compare your results with other authors’ results. Now you cite here only three papers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Satisfied with revision’s, have no further concerns.
