Next Article in Journal
Improved Vegetation Ecological Quality of the Three-North Shelterbelt Project Region of China during 2000–2020 as Evidenced from Multiple Remotely Sensed Indicators
Previous Article in Journal
MFNet: Multi-Level Feature Extraction and Fusion Network for Large-Scale Point Cloud Classification
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Time Series Analysis of Land Cover Change Using Remotely Sensed and Multisource Urban Data Based on Machine Learning: A Case Study of Shenzhen, China from 1979 to 2022

Remote Sens. 2022, 14(22), 5706; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14225706
by Kai Ding 1, Yidu Huang 1, Chisheng Wang 2, Qingquan Li 2,*, Chao Yang 2, Xu Fang 2, Ming Tao 1, Renping Xie 1 and Ming Dai 3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Remote Sens. 2022, 14(22), 5706; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14225706
Submission received: 17 October 2022 / Revised: 30 October 2022 / Accepted: 7 November 2022 / Published: 11 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Urban Remote Sensing)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Thank you from bottom of my heart for your suggestions!

Best wishes for you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 1.     This paper titled in time serises analysis of land cover change, however, there are many questions remianed unclearly, so the authors should reinforce.

2.     What is the target of this paper, is to get a new discovery from the unique data set or to propos a new method. This paper should be more focused and more consistent.

3.     The description "based on machine learning and complex networks" in the title is too vague. On the other hand, the Machine learning and complex networks are not juxtaposed. The titile should be changed to clearly explain the innvoation of this paper.

4.     The abstract only describes the research results, lacking research background and problems. Some descriptions of research problems can be added.

5.     The last paragraph of section 1, Lack of explanation on why the method of complex network is superior?

6.     Section 2.2 The title and content are not particularly relevant, or what is the classification system is?

7.     Line 110 state “therefor the values in all bands are lower than other classes”, while the band 6 of water is higher than that of vegetation and barelang. So the descript should modify more specifically.

8.     Section 2.3 should give a clear statement about the method in this paper, not review the genernal method of the previous work. The network of this paper should be emphasised.

9.     In figure 5 should explain what does the thickness of the arrow indicate.

10.  The conclusions should reorganized from the apsects of method, the result and the furture effects.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Thank you from bottom of my heart for your suggestions!

Best wishes for you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have more than satisfactorily addressed most of the issues I raised earlier, and the revised version is suitable for publication in the Remote Sensing journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

No more questions.

Back to TopTop