An Online Detection Method for Coal Dry Screening Based on Image Processing and Fractal Analysis
Meimei Lai
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript presented a research of a new fractal dimension detection method for screening efficiency detection based on image process. This manuscript is valuable for the researchers involved in coal dry screening. I would recommend some revisions and clarifications:
I. Make sure to have correct capital letters and period in your figure captions.
II. Fig. 1 What kind of CCD and what is the exposure time and gain value of the setting?
III. Please put the scale bar in your image
IV. Please check the grammar.
1. Introduction
“developed a user-coded Image JImageJ plugin based on determined”
“to analyze PSD and determine various particle size distribution (PSD) parameters”
4. Results and discussion
“Therefore, we chosen a group of 9-13 mm …”
“The larger the fractal dimension is, the more small particles there are on the sieve.”
Author Response
Comment 1: Make sure to have correct capital letters and period in your figure captions.
Response 1: It has been checked in manuscript.
Comment 2: Fig. 1 What kind of CCD and what is the exposure time and gain value of the setting?
Response 2:It has been added in manuscript.
Comment 3: Please put the scale bar in your image
Response 3:The scale bar is hardly put in my image, because I have not made the measure at first. And our research does not rely on this, the scale hardly affects the measurement of fractal dimension. Please ignore that.
Comment 4: Please check the grammar.
Response 4:It has been revised by a colleague.
Reviewer 2 Report
No more comments, I will do what it's better paper.
Author Response
The reviewer has no more comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
The motivation of the research is not quite clear and even the conclusion part of the research is not reflecting what was the motivation behind this research. It is not clear that are authors doing segmentation or what kind of image detection is it, how it is segmented and how it will detect the image not clear at all.
Even Abstract not drafted properly:
"We propose a new fractal dimension detection method for screening efficiency detection based on image process, including image filtering, wavelet denoising and edge detection, to solve this problem"
Above sentence have mistakes including flow of sentence and having not a proper wording like "process" should be "processing" as highlighted etc.
Incomplete sentences at many places in the manuscript like:
"In coal dry screening, it is difficult to use the methods mentioned before." Why it is not difficult not mentioned?
etc.
Figure 1. did not have all the component of the proposed system that were explained in the text
Theirs should be section of "Material and Methods" rather than experimental and basic theory.
Be aware of the word "invention" . Authors are claiming that they invented and it is not fully explained and justified that what they invented.
Authors were claiming "new" but actually they added/improved something in the concept of screening efficiency .
Equations were not mentioned in the text for what they were made for.
A major English polishing required to make sense what they actually did and how it is useful for scientific community.
Some proper research already done as shown below link:
Multi-information online detection of coal quality based on machine vision - ScienceDirect
Author Response
Comment 1: The motivation of the research is not quite clear and even the conclusion part of the research is not reflecting what was the motivation behind this research. It is not clear that are authors doing segmentation or what kind of image detection is it, how it is segmented and how it will detect the image not clear at all.
Even Abstract not drafted properly:
"We propose a new fractal dimension detection method for screening efficiency detection based on image process, including image filtering, wavelet denoising and edge detection, to solve this problem"
Above sentence have mistakes including flow of sentence and having not a proper wording like "process" should be "processing" as highlighted etc.
Incomplete sentences at many places in the manuscript like:
"In coal dry screening, it is difficult to use the methods mentioned before." Why it is not difficult not mentioned?
etc.
Response 1: It has been changed in the new vision.
Comment 2: Figure 1. did not have all the component of the proposed system that were explained in the text
Response 2:In the system, two CMOS cameras are fixed on the feeding and discharging conveyor belts at both ends of the vibrating screen.
Comment 3: Theirs should be section of "Material and Methods" rather than experimental and basic theory.
Response 3:The subtitles have been changed.
Comment 4: Be aware of the word "invention" . Authors are claiming that they invented and it is not fully explained and justified that what they invented.
Response 4: It has been changed in manuscript.
Comment 5: Authors were claiming "new" but actually they added/improved something in the concept of screening efficiency .
Response 5: Associating the fractal dimension with screening efficiency is new. We skillfully transform the difficult problem of image detection for particle size distribution into the calculation of fractal dimension of coal edge image.
Comment 6: Equations were not mentioned in the text for what they were made for.
Response 6: It has been changed in manuscript.
Comment 7: A major English polishing required to make sense what they actually did and how it is useful for scientific community.
Response 7: It has been revised by a colleague. And the new content was added.
Comment 8: Some proper research already done as shown below link:
Multi-information online detection of coal quality based on machine vision - ScienceDirect
Response 8: This article(you mentioned) focus on the constituent identification of coal. And it has clear background. The images of our research are coal heap. The difficulty of processing these images is not same.
Reviewer 4 Report
Overall the manuscript provides relevant and important research on online detection for coal dry screening. I have a few suggestions that I have pointed out below:
1. A brief background about the research problem is missing in the introduction section.
2. Section 2 can be improved, can add some functional informations of CCDs and how they are used in past works.
3. some of the important references are missing throughout the manuscript.
4. Result and discussion section needs more writing. The description of the results is not clear.
5. Try to bring Fig 8 in one page, it will be difficult for readers to scroll every time.
Author Response
Comment 1: A brief background about the research problem is missing in the introduction section.
Response 1: It has been added in manuscript.
Comment 2: Section 2 can be improved, can add some functional informations of CCDs and how they are used in past works.
Response 2: It has been added in manuscript.
Comment 3: some of the important references are missing throughout the manuscript.
Response 3:It has been added in manuscript.
Comment 4: Result and discussion section needs more writing. The description of the results is not clear.
Response 4: I think I have make it clear as I can. The necessary information has been explained. Please consider it again.
Comment 5: Try to bring Fig 8 in one page, it will be difficult for readers to scroll every time.
Response 5: If bring in one page, it will be hardly identified.
Reviewer 5 Report
This paper presents an Online Detection Method for Coal Dry Screening based on Image Processing and Fractal Analysis. Before consider it for publication the following remarks should be revised carefully:
1- The abstract should be improved including the novelties of presented work.
2- English typos and grammatical errors must be revised.
3- The resolution of Fig 1 should be improved.
4- Please double check all the formulation and some parameters were not defined.
5- The technique used description is poor. The authors are required to present carefully the used technique for image processing based on input and output.
6- The flowchart of presented technique should be added.
7- The conclusion can be improved based on the advantage of disadvantage of presented technique.
Author Response
Comment 1: The abstract should be improved including the novelties of presented work.
Response 1: It has been added in manuscript.
Comment 2: English typos and grammatical errors must be revised.
Response 2: It has been revised by a colleague.
Comment 3: The resolution of Fig 1 should be improved.
Response 3: Fig 1 was improved in manuscript.
Comment 4: Please double check all the formulation and some parameters were not defined.
Response 4: It has been checked in manuscript.
Comment 5: The technique used description is poor. The authors are required to present carefully the used technique for image processing based on input and output.
Response 5: It has been checked in manuscript.
Comment 6: The flowchart of presented technique should be added.
Response 6: The flowchart has been added.
Comment 7: The conclusion can be improved based on the advantage of disadvantage of presented technique.
Response 7: It has been improved in manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Still Authors are claiming invention word in two places (line 66 & 299) that is not suitable rather than they can say we added fractal dimension to the screening methodology. They did not invented fractal dimension as well as coal screening. So it is not appropriate to claim that they invented something. It is just they added one methodology fractal dimension to improve the screening efficiency. Author were claiming that they invented a image processing technology. If they invented something then their should be a particular name of the technology that is missing their and their must be some discussion around that they invented XYZ technology with a supporting literature that these studies did this and we discovered a completely new method or process from the scratch. Which is completely missing.
Author Response
Comment 1:Still Authors are claiming invention word in two places (line 66 & 299) that is not suitable rather than they can say we added fractal dimension to the screening methodology. They did not invented fractal dimension as well as coal screening. So it is not appropriate to claim that they invented something. It is just they added one methodology fractal dimension to improve the screening efficiency. Author were claiming that they invented a image processing technology. If they invented something then their should be a particular name of the technology that is missing their and their must be some discussion around that they invented XYZ technology with a supporting literature that these studies did this and we discovered a completely new method or process from the scratch. Which is completely missing.
Response 1: The invention word in two places (line 66 & 299) is changed in manuscript.
Reviewer 5 Report
I accept in present form.
Author Response
Comment 1: I accept in present form.
Response 1: English language and style were checked.
