Prediction of Greenhouse Microclimatic Parameters Using Building Transient Simulation and Artificial Neural Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the work is interesting and contains interesting scientific implementations during greenhouse production. All comments were in the attached document.

1. In title it is not neutral it is neural. Change that throughout the whole paper

2. line 9- It is Artificial Neural Networks.. According to the title and the first sentence of the abstract, it seems like the authors used AI while writing the paper

3. line 46- which part of the European continent

4. line 54- put subscript in CO2

5. figure 3. - ensure better image quality

6. in subtitle 2.3. - Better describe the use of software tools in creating ANN models. Why the 80:20 split? What is the structure of the network (number of neurons in the input, hidden, and output layers)? What is the formula for calculating the neural network output(y)? State the activation and transfer functions of the hidden and output layers.

7. It would be good to do a sensitivity analysis to see the influence of the relative humidity of the input variables on the output values of the model.

and all comments are in the attached pdf

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Artificial NEURAL Networks not neutral- change in whole paper

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the detailed responses in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I wrote, “The hypothesis and the reasons that led to the research should be state in the introduction. A scientific hypothesis is not stated in the “Introduction” section” in a review of the article ”Prediction of Greenhouse Microclimatic Parameters Using Building Transient Simulation and Artificial Neutral Networks”. If a study does not have a scientific hypothesis, it is impossible to answer the questions I have posed. I invite the editors to review the following reflections of mine.  Scientific research is a specific form of scientific work, i.e. the research by scientific methods of a particular subject (phenomenon, process) in order to obtain knowledge about it that is not yet known and their further useful use in the practical activities of people. Scientific research is the core content of scientific activity, it is in them that new knowledge is born, hypotheses are tested, scientific ideas and theories are proved or rejected, generalisations of earlier researches are made and tasks for further scientific and engineering development are set. (Answer to question 1) "Methodology is the doctrine of principles of construction, forms and methods of scientific-cognitive activity. The most important points of application of methodology are the problem statement". In the peer-reviewed article, the problems were not explicitly identified, so there is no scientific hypothesis. (Answer to question 4). There is a model of scientific knowledge construction. It involves movement according to the following generalized algorithm: establishment of empirical facts; primary empirical generalisation; detection of facts deviating from the rule; invention of a theoretical hypothesis with a new scheme of explanation; logical conclusion (deduction) from the hypothesis of all observed facts, which is its verification of truth. Confirmation of the hypothesis states it into a theoretical law. Law - is an essential, necessary, stable recurring relationship of phenomena, i.e. something general and universal for this or that fragment of reality. The scientific knowledge is obtained according to such scheme. (Answer to question 5) The second and third questions should be asked of the authors of the study. In the introduction, current problems and past work are typically discussed, along with a description of what the paper presents.

 

I have no questions about the quality and content of the tables and figures. All available references are appropriate.

Please see the attachment. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the detailed responses in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English need to be improved since it’s hard to understand in many parts of the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the detailed responses in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe the manuscript has been sufficiently improved.