Next Article in Journal
Analyzing RNA-Seq Gene Expression Data Using Deep Learning Approaches for Cancer Classification
Previous Article in Journal
Nanostructured Top Contact as an Alternative to Transparent Conductive Oxides in Tandem Perovskite/c-Si Solar Cells
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Implementation of Predictive Models in Industrial Machines with Proposed Automatic Adaptation Algorithm

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(4), 1853; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12041853
by Ivan Kuric 1, Ivana Klačková 1,*, Kseniia Domnina 2, Vladimír Stenchlák 1 and Milan Sága, Jr. 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(4), 1853; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12041853
Submission received: 18 January 2022 / Revised: 8 February 2022 / Accepted: 9 February 2022 / Published: 11 February 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors! I have a number of questions for you:
1. Abstract is too short and not informative.
2. Outdated literature for the review was used and its quantity is insufficient, it is necessary to expand the list.
3. In which graphic editor the drawings were made, the quality is unsatisfactory.
4.Part of the material must be transferred to the application.
5. The method is not described in sufficient detail to understand the relevance of its application.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your comments and we send you all answers.

Thanks a lot

Ivana Klačková

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper proposes a NAN NN as predictive model to predict the course of certain variables in machines and avoid failures.  The topic is very sound, but some parts must be improved according to the journal requirements:  

The most important one is that the authors should provide the NAN NN source code implemented in MATHLAB.  Or the pseudocode of the algorithms developed. 

The authors propose the use of non linera autoregressive method, but no literature is found to justify why they have selected this method.

The authors have to explain the algorithm of F8 in more detail, perhaps the pseudocode or uploading the source code could serve to improve the explanation. 

Figure 9 should be also better explained, it is not clear why the authors use "elapsed time prerequisites "

The authors have to explain which correction where made in the model parameters, and what model parameters are used. 

Figure 12 must be better explained, specially the "Prediction steps ahead" meaning and the objective of this represented line plot. 

Table 2 needs a deeper explanation, this explanation must go hand in hand with Figure 12. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your comments and we send you all answers.

Thanks a lot

Ivana Klačková

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been improved. But please check self-citation as do not see clear connections with the cites and the text they refer. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we sending you the new link for supplement materials.

The data presented in this study are openly available in

link: https://zilinskauniverzita-my.sharepoint.com/:u:/g/personal/stenchlak4_stud_uniza_sk/EW6ib5DEor5Ji2FY5580MyUB6NcQ8tQPQMh5lcarwvQgSA?e=pFtcGr

Alternatively the data are available on request from the corresponding author.

We hope that it will works now correctly and we extended self-citations.

Best regards

Ing. Ivana Klačková, PhD.

Back to TopTop