Research on Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Method for Frontier Fundamental Research Project for Future Aircraft Engines

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Research on Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Method for Frontier Fundamental Research Project for Future Aircraft Engines' ' is presented well and the outcomes are discussed properly. The following queries should be addressed in the manuscript.

1)  Background and literature section should have recent journals which are published already?
2)  Mention the objective of the work?

3) Results and discussion parts should be expanded to get more clarity in the work?

4) What is the novelty of the current work? 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of english is good.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable in guiding us towards significant improvements in our work. Based on your comments, we have implemented the following revisions and refinements:

Comments 1: Background and literature section should have recent journals which are published already?

Response 1: Thanks for your comments. The Aeroengine and Gas Turbine Science Center has initiated the Future Aeroengine & Turbine Innovation Project plan in 2020. The plan is a typical frontier fundamental research project focusing on crafting aero-thermodynamic configurations for aircraft engines that are not just viable for the supersonic aircraft of tomorrow but are also ultra-economic in operation. To the best of our knowledge, no journal articles related to the background of the project have been published.

 

Comments 2: Mention the objective of the work?

Response 2: Thank you for your feedback, we have revised the “1.Introduction” and clarified the objective of the work, as shown in the following:

“Given the complex interdependencies within this technical system and the necessity for interdisciplinary collaboration, as well as the frontier fundamental research projects of aircraft engine face a higher technical risk with more uncertainty and complexity during the research process due to lower technical readiness level, long research cycles, and interdisciplinary integration, the objectives of the work include developing a comprehensive evaluation indicator system to evaluate the performance of the FATIP plan, focusing on the directionality and sustainability of its initiatives, as well as the integration of the overall and component design and new technologies. On this basis, a combined quantitative and qualitative performance evaluation method should be developed to manage the risks associated with systemic exploration and to scientifically assess the technical contributions and progress of the entities involved, which can effectively avoid subjective bias existing in traditional scoring mechanisms, thereby enhancing the rigor and objectivity of the evaluation process.”

Comments 3: Results and discussion parts should be expanded to get more clarity in the work?

Response 3: Thanks for your kind suggestion. We have revised the conclusion, as shown in the following:

In this research, we propose a comprehensive performance evaluation method to assess frontier fundamental research projects for future advanced aircraft engines. This evaluation method combines quantitative and qualitative assessments to thoroughly evaluate project strengths and challenges, and a case study on a major project under the FATIP funding system aiming at developing the aerothermodynamics configuration for aircraft engines is conducted to validate the proposed method. The key contributions of the research include:

1) To balance assessing the innovative potential and technical risks for frontier fundamental research projects, we propose a comprehensive evaluation indicator system, which emphasizes collaborative research on developing the integrated top-level general performance scheme spanning these technologies for evaluating frontier fundamental research projects.

2) We adopt the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine the appropriate weights for the established comprehensive evaluation indicator system, derived from a survey conducted among technical experts at the center.

3) Based on the AHP-weighted quantification of indicator systems, the fuzzy com-prehensive evaluation method integrates expert ratings (excellent, good, fair, marginal, and poor) across indicators. It aggregates weighted criteria to derive comprehensive eval-uations, effectively avoiding traditional scoring mechanisms like subjective bias and sim-ple averaging, thereby enhancing the rigor and objectivity of the evaluation process.

4) A case study validates the evaluation system's effectiveness, highlighting its rele-vance and efficacy in aligning basic research with practical needs in aircraft engine development, which is essential for transitioning innovative concepts from theory to practice.

Therefore, this research establishes a crucial foundation for advancing aerospace engineering and innovation in next-generation aircraft engine technologies. It provides theoretical support not only for evaluating frontier fundamental research projects related to aircraft engines but also for promoting similar advancements in other major equipment sectors. In future research, we will refine the evaluation indicator system to cover aircraft engine performance under various conditions. Simulation scenarios will be developed to validate performance evaluations of overall and specific components. Additionally, integrating advanced analytical techniques, such as machine learning and predictive modeling, will enhance the evaluation system's robustness and accuracy. These data-driven insights will provide policymakers with a strategic tool to prioritize impactful frontier research projects in advanced engines.

Comments 4: What is the novelty of the current work?

Response 4:

Thanks for your kind comments. We have clarified the novelty of the current work as follows:

Recent research has achieved considerable results in aspects such as the quantification identification of evaluation indicators for basic research projects and weapon equipment projects, the establishment of evaluation indicator systems, and the methods of project performance evaluation. However, in the evaluation process, they neglect the degree of support to the top-level general scheme and indicators of the projects and whether the research results are well applied to the integration process of the overall performance scheme of the engine, which is crucial for the preliminary research projects of aircraft engines. To solve this problem, in this research, a novel comprehensive evaluation indicator system, which emphasizes collaborative research and values the integration of research outcomes, is developed for the frontier fundamental research project for future aircraft engines with low technology readiness levels. To overcome the shortcomings of the existing scoring mechanism used in project assessment, we propose a comprehensive qualitative and quantitative evaluation method, which is of great significance for controlling systemic risks in perspective basic research projects and addressing the challenges of balancing the divergence of basic research and the feasibility of system integration. This research lays a critical foundation for advancing aerospace engineering and innovation in next-generation aircraft engine technologies, offering theoretical support for evaluating such projects.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research proposes a new approach for performance evaluation of "aircraft gas turbine engine development" projects. 

In general, the title and the content is not relevant at all.  The points and evaluation methodology can be applied to any projects, so it has no direct relation with " Frontier Fundamental Research Project for Future Aircraft Engines" as mentioned.

The research must depend on some project management knowledgebase or reference, or at least a database of past applications. 

The findings are very general and not related with the methodology/results of this study. 

It will be beneficial to reader to separately mention the qualitative and quantitative methods in the literature review. 

The English use must be rechecked all through the manuscript.

It is mentioned as "we conduct extensive literature research with the management and 221 technical expertise of personnel and senior experts from the Aero-Engine and Gas Turbine 222 Basic Science Center (abbreviated as “center”) and develop a robust evaluation system" and later as "By conducting extensive literature research and combining the management expe- 234 rience of personnel and senior technical experts from the center". This need to be either explained further or mentioned in another way. The personel is not listed as authors? If it is an "expert view" than your methodology must be revised as well. 

Please check "a higher technical risk 230 with more certainty" is it uncertainty or certainty?

There is no reference on project management, so determination of project performance parameters seems to rely only on personal opinions. The metrics presented can be found on references and authors would benefit on shorter definitions. 

The steps provided under "3.2. Establishment of the Analytic Hierarchy Process" have not related with the research. Please provide details how these methods are applied to the problem and how the results are achieved.  for example what are the sub-problems, how is it divided, according to figure 1 or figure2?

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

General English editing is required.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you and the reviewers for the time and effort spent reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate the constructive feedback and have found the comments insightful and helpful in enhancing the quality of our work. We have carefully considered each point raised by the reviewers and have made corresponding revisions to the manuscript. Our work includes:

 

Comments 1. The research proposes a new approach for performance evaluation of "aircraft gas turbine engine development" projects. In general, the title and the content is not relevant at all. The points and evaluation methodology can be applied to any projects, so it has no direct relation with "Frontier Fundamental Research Project for Future Aircraft Engines" as mentioned.

Response 1:

Thanks for your comments. Based on your kind suggestions, we have revised the manuscript and made the following clarifications to demonstrate that the points and evaluation methodology are directly related to the frontier fundamental research project for future aircraft engine, as shown below:

• Firstly, in “2. Related Work”, we have addressed the key contributions of the research:

“Recent research has achieved considerable results in aspects such as the quantification identification of evaluation indicators for basic research projects and weapon equipment projects, the establishment of evaluation indicator systems, and the methods of project performance evaluation. However, in the evaluation process, they neglect the degree of support to the top-level general scheme and indicators of the projects and whether the research results are well applied to the integration process of the overall performance scheme of the engine, which is crucial for the preliminary research projects of aircraft engines. To solve this problem, in this research, a novel comprehensive evaluation indicator system, which emphasizes collaborative research and values the integration of research outcomes, is developed for the frontier fundamental research project for future aircraft engines with low technology readiness levels. To overcome the shortcomings of the simple scoring mechanism used in project assessment, we propose a comprehensive qualitative and quantitative evaluation method, which is of great significance for controlling systemic risks in perspective basic research projects and addressing the challenges of balancing the divergence of basic research and the feasibility of system integration. This research lays a critical foundation for advancing aerospace engineering and innovation in next-generation aircraft engine technologies, offering theoretical support for evaluating such projects.”

• Secondly, in “3.1 Establishment of the Evaluation Indicator System”, we develop a comprehensive evaluation indicator system for the frontier fundamental research project for future aircraft engines with low technology readiness levels, by considering the degree of support to the top-level general performance scheme and indicators of the projects and whether the research results are well applied to the integration process of the overall performance scheme of the engine, as well as project management quality, technical level, and benefits and prospects of the project.
• Thirdly, in the “4 Case study”, we select a major project under the FATIP funding system as a critical frontier fundamental research project as an example and conduct the mid-term performance evaluation. Based on the experts' remarks, we develop the project's overall performance score to reveal the effectiveness of the developed Indicator system and the proposed AHP-FCE method.

 

• Lastly, we have revised the descriptions in “5. Conclusions” to address the contributions of the research:

“In this research, we propose a comprehensive performance evaluation method to assess frontier fundamental research projects for future advanced aircraft engines. This evaluation method combines quantitative and qualitative assessments to thoroughly evaluate project strengths and challenges, and a case study on a major project under the FATIP funding system aiming at developing the aerothermodynamics configuration for aircraft engines is conducted to validate the proposed method. The key contributions of the research include:

1) To balance assessing the innovative potential and technical risks for frontier fundamental research projects, we propose a comprehensive evaluation indicator system, which emphasizes collaborative research on developing the integrated top-level general performance scheme spanning these technologies for evaluating frontier fundamental research projects.

2) We adopt the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine the appropriate weights for the established comprehensive evaluation indicator system, derived from a survey conducted among technical experts at the center.

3) Based on the AHP-weighted quantification of indicator systems, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method integrates expert ratings (excellent, good, fair, marginal, and poor) across indicators. It aggregates weighted criteria to derive comprehensive evaluations, effectively avoiding traditional scoring mechanisms like subjective bias and simple averaging, thereby enhancing the rigor and objectivity of the evaluation process.

4) A case study validates the evaluation system's effectiveness, highlighting its relevance and efficacy in aligning basic research with practical needs in aircraft engine development, which is essential for transitioning innovative concepts from theory to practice.

Therefore, this research establishes a crucial foundation for advancing aerospace engineering and innovation in next-generation aircraft engine technologies. It provides the-oretical support not only for evaluating frontier fundamental research projects related to aircraft engines but also for promoting similar advancements in other major equipment sectors. In future research, we will refine the evaluation indicator system to cover aircraft engine performance under various conditions. Simulation scenarios will be developed to validate performance evaluations of overall and specific components. Additionally, integrating advanced analytical techniques, such as machine learning and predictive modeling, will enhance the evaluation system's robustness and accuracy. These data-driven insights will provide policymakers with a strategic tool to prioritize impactful frontier research projects in advanced engines.”

 

Comments 2. The research must depend on some project management knowledgebase or reference, or at least a database of past applications.

Response 2:Thanks for your comment. We have revised “Section 3.1 Establishment of the evaluation indicator system”, and incorporated additional project management insights and references, as outlined below:

“Based on the comprehensive performance evaluation index system of the key special project under the National Key Research and Development Program ^[32,33] and combining the management experience of personnel and senior technical experts from the center, we have developed a comprehensive evaluation indicator system for frontier fundamental research projects. The system incorporates common factors such as the project progress, significant achievements and benefits, and utilizing personnel and financial resources in routine performance evaluations, and emphasizes collaborative research on developing the integrated top-level general performance scheme, categorized into three primary indicators: project management quality, technical level, and benefits and prospects of the project. Multiple secondary and tertiary indicators are established under each primary indicator to assess project performance comprehensively.”

 

Comments 3. The findings are very general and not related with the methodology/results of this study.

Response 3:

Thank you for your feedback regarding the perceived generality of our findings relative to the methodology and results presented in our study. We appreciate your concern and would like to clarify the specific relevance of our findings to our study's methodology and results in conclusions:

“In this research, we propose a comprehensive performance evaluation method to assess frontier fundamental research projects for future advanced aircraft engines. This evaluation method combines quantitative and qualitative assessments to thoroughly evaluate project strengths and challenges, and a case study on a major project under the FATIP funding system aiming at developing the aerothermodynamics configuration for aircraft engines is conducted to validate the proposed method. The key contributions of the research include:

1) To balance assessing the innovative potential and technical risks for frontier fundamental research projects, we propose a comprehensive evaluation indicator system, which emphasizes collaborative research on developing the integrated top-level general performance scheme spanning these technologies for evaluating frontier fundamental research projects.

2) We adopt the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine the appropriate weights for the established comprehensive evaluation indicator system, derived from a survey conducted among technical experts at the center.

3) Based on the AHP-weighted quantification of indicator systems, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method integrates expert ratings (excellent, good, fair, marginal, and poor) across indicators. It aggregates weighted criteria to derive comprehensive evaluations, effectively avoiding traditional scoring mechanisms like subjective bias and simple averaging, thereby enhancing the rigor and objectivity of the evaluation process.

4) A case study validates the evaluation system's effectiveness, highlighting its relevance and efficacy in aligning basic research with practical needs in aircraft engine development, which is essential for transitioning innovative concepts from theory to practice.

Therefore, this research establishes a crucial foundation for advancing aerospace engineering and innovation in next-generation aircraft engine technologies. It provides the-oretical support not only for evaluating frontier fundamental research projects related to aircraft engines but also for promoting similar advancements in other major equipment sectors. In future research, we will refine the evaluation indicator system to cover aircraft engine performance under various conditions. Simulation scenarios will be developed to validate performance evaluations of overall and specific components. Additionally, integrating advanced analytical techniques, such as machine learning and predictive modeling, will enhance the evaluation system's robustness and accuracy. These data-driven insights will provide policymakers with a strategic tool to prioritize impactful frontier research projects in advanced engines.”

 

Comments 4. It will be beneficial to reader to separately mention the qualitative and quantitative methods in the literature review.

Response 4: Thanks for your kind comments. We have revised the “Related works” section, and the qualitative and quantitative methods are separately mentioned, as shown as follows:

“Performance evaluation methods for research projects include qualitative and quantitative methods. The qualitative evaluation method is a research or assessment approach focused on describing and interpreting phenomena, observed characteristics, or situations, rather than analyzing them through quantitative data. This method typically involves in-depth analysis of observations, interviews, or case studies to gain a deeper understanding of the implications of phenomena, rather than merely conducting numerical measurement or calculation. Qualitative evaluation includes peer review and the Delphi method. The peer review is most frequently used based on a scoring system for assessing scientific research funding projects. It is expressed through quantitative scores based on peer review, and the decisions are made based on ranking the scores after the comprehensive reviewers' opinions integration ^[5]. Delphi method is a structured technique used to harness and synthesize expert opinions iteratively, aiming to achieve consensus or systematically forecast future trends through anonymous multiple rounds of surveys and iterative feedback ^[6].

Quantitative evaluation methods are the systematic process of collecting and analyzing numerical data to understand, assess, and quantify outcomes, behaviors, or phenomena. These methods rely on statistical, mathematical, or computational techniques to convert data into measurable, objective evidence that can be used to test hypotheses, make predictions, or inform decisions. Quantitative evaluation methods include bibliometric analysis^[7], principal component analysis^[8], analytic hierarchy process^[9], and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation^[10]. However, mixed methods research, combining elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches, leverages both strengths to achieve a more detailed and accurate understanding of research questions, making it a powerful approach in many fields of study^[11].”

 

Comments 5. The English use must be rechecked all through the manuscript.

Response 5: Thanks for your kind comments. The entire manuscript has been meticulously refined for language quality.

 

Comments 6. It is mentioned as "we conduct extensive literature research with the management and technical expertise of personnel and senior experts from the Aero-Engine and Gas Turbine Basic Science Center (abbreviated as “center”) and develop a robust evaluation system" and later as "By conducting extensive literature research and combining the management experience of personnel and senior technical experts from the center". This need to be either explained further or mentioned in another way. The personel is not listed as authors? If it is an "expert view" than your methodology must be revised as well.

Response 6: Thanks for your kind suggestion. This research was mainly supported by the Science Center for Gas Turbine Project (P2023-B-I-005-001). During the project initiation and execution process, we surveyed the management and technical expertise of personnel and senior experts from the Aero-Engine and Gas Turbine Basic Science Center (abbreviated as “center”) and developed a robust evaluation indicator system. Given the sensitivity of information from experts in the field of aircraft engines, the funding project has been listed in the acknowledgments. Additionally, the acknowledgments have been revised to acknowledge experts for their assistance in survey completion and suggestions.

 

Comments 7. Please check "a higher technical risk with more certainty" is it uncertainty or certainty?

Response 7: Thanks for your suggestion. We have modified it to uncertainty.

Comments 8. There is no reference on project management, so determination of project performance parameters seems to rely only on personal opinions. The metrics presented can be found on references and authors would benefit on shorter definitions.

Response 8: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have revised the section on project management references. Based on the suggestions, we have also added relevant references to the section "3.1. Establishment of the Evaluation Indicator System," as shown below:

“Since the aircraft engine fundamental research projects face a higher technical risk with more uncertainty and complexity during the research process due to lower levels of technological maturity, long research cycles, and interdisciplinary integration, a comprehensive evaluation indicator system is the prerequisite for effectively managing these programs. Based on the comprehensive performance evaluation index system of the key special project under the National Key Research and Development Program ^[32,33] and combining the management experience of personnel and senior technical experts from the center, we have developed a comprehensive evaluation indicator system for fundamental research projects. The system consists of the primary evaluation indicators from three dimensions: project management quality, technical level, and benefits and prospects of the project.”

 

Comments 9. The steps provided under "3.2. Establishment of the Analytic Hierarchy Process" have not related with the research. Please provide details how these methods are applied to the problem and how the results are achieved. For example what are the sub-problems, how is it divided, according to Figure 1 or Figure2?

Response 9: Thanks for your question, and we make the following revisions to clarify how the “Section 3 Methodology” related to the “Section 4 Case study”:

• Firstly, we have revised the "3.2. Establishment of the Analytic Hierarchy Process" to demonstrate how the problem is divided into sub-problems according to Figure 2, as shown in the following:

“3.2. Establishment of the Analytic Hierarchy Process

As depicted in Figure 2, the comprehensive management evaluation indicator system for the projects under the FATIP plan is utilized. We employ the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a structured technique pioneered by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s^[30], to determine the relative weights of indicators. AHP simplifies complex decision-making by organizing objectives into a hierarchical framework, which is then decomposed into levels of indicators and factors. This method quantifies the significance of each factor and calculates its weight, enabling a systematic evaluation of alternatives and prioritization of objectives. The calculation process of AHP is shown as follows:

Step 1. Problem Decomposition

The decision problem is initially broken down into a structured hierarchy of smaller, more manageable sub-problems, enabling a clearer and more systematic evaluation process. This hierarchical structure is typically organized into several levels: at the top are the primary indicators of the decision-making process, as level 1 shown in Figure 2; the secondary indicators comprise various criteria or factors that need to be considered, providing a framework for assessing the options, as level 2 shown in Figure 2; and the tertiary indicators at the bottom are the alternatives or options being evaluated, as level 3 shown in Figure 2. This breakdown not only facilitates a comprehensive understanding of the complex decision at hand but also aids in systematically comparing the alternatives against the set criteria, ensuring a thorough and balanced decision-making approach.”

• Secondly, we have revised the “4.1 Weight Calculation of the Evaluation System based on the AHP Method” and “4.2 Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation of the Typical Project” in the "4 Case Study" to demonstrate how the results obtained following the calculation process in “3.2 Establishment of the Analytic Hierarchy Process” and “3.3. Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Method”, as shown in the following:

“4.1 Weight calculation of the evaluation system based on the AHP method

Based on the established comprehensive evaluation index system, questionnaires were distributed to 12 project technical experts at the center. After collecting the relevant data, a judgment matrix was constructed. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was then used to compare the importance of each criterion pairwise to determine the indices' weights at different levels, following the calculation process in Section 3.2.”

• Lastly, we have revised “4.1.2 Weights of Secondary Indicators” to show the detailed process of the calculated weights following “Section 3.2”：

“According to the evaluation results from the experts, we calculate the corresponding indicator weights for the judgment matrix for secondary indicators of A₁~A₃ according to Equations(1)~(6), and conduct a consistency check on the calculation results, as shown in Tables 6-8.”

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a comprehensive evaluation indicator system for evaluating frontier fundamental research 16 projects for future advanced aircraft engines, integrating the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and 17 fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE). This study is interesting and sufficient, can be accepted after minor revision.

1) The conclusion is too long.

2) There are many Tables,  some can be merged together, for example , Table 5~ Table 14.

3) The English can be further polished. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English can be further polished.

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable in guiding us towards significant improvements in our work. Based on your comments, we have implemented the following revisions and refinements:
Comments 1: The conclusion is too long.
Response 1: Thanks for your kind suggestion. We have revised the conclusion, as shown in the following:
In this research, we propose a comprehensive performance evaluation method to assess frontier fundamental research projects for future advanced aircraft engines. This evaluation method combines quantitative and qualitative assessments to thoroughly evaluate project strengths and challenges, and a case study on a major project under the FATIP funding system aiming at developing the aerothermodynamics configuration for aircraft engines is conducted to validate the proposed method. The key contributions of the research include:
1) To balance assessing the innovative potential and technical risks for frontier fundamental research projects, we propose a comprehensive evaluation indicator system, which emphasizes collaborative research on developing the integrated top-level general performance scheme spanning these technologies for evaluating frontier fundamental research projects.
2) We adopt the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine the appropriate weights for the established comprehensive evaluation indicator system, derived from a survey conducted among technical experts at the center.
3) Based on the AHP-weighted quantification of indicator systems, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method integrates expert ratings (excellent, good, fair, marginal, and poor) across indicators. It aggregates weighted criteria to derive comprehensive evaluations, effectively avoiding traditional scoring mechanisms like subjective bias and simple averaging, thereby enhancing the rigor and objectivity of the evaluation process.
4) A case study validates the evaluation system's effectiveness, highlighting its
relevance and efficacy in aligning basic research with practical needs in aircraft engine development, which is essential for transitioning innovative concepts from theory to practice.
Therefore, this research establishes a crucial foundation for advancing aerospace engineering and innovation in next-generation aircraft engine technologies. It provides theoretical support not only for evaluating frontier fundamental research projects related to aircraft engines but also for promoting similar advancements in other major equipment sectors. In future research, we will refine the evaluation indicator system to cover aircraft engine performance under various conditions. Simulation scenarios will be developed to validate performance evaluations of overall and specific components. Additionally, integrating advanced analytical techniques, such as machine learning and predictive modeling, will enhance the evaluation system's robustness and accuracy. These data-driven insights will provide policymakers with a strategic tool to prioritize impactful frontier research projects in advanced engines.
Comments 2: There are many Tables, some can be merged together, for example, Table 5~Table 14.
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly by consolidating Tables 5~7 into Table 5, each containing three indicators. However, merging other tables proved challenging due to varying numbers of factors across those tables.
Comments 3: The English can be further polished.
Response 3: Thanks for your kind comments. The entire manuscript has been meticulously refined for language quality.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the revisions, the manuscript can be accepted in current final form. 

Author Response

Comment 1: After the revisions, the manuscript can be accepted in current final form.

Response 1:  Thanks for your comment, we have revised  the manuscript.