Entity Recognition for Chinese Hazardous Chemical Accident Data Based on Rules and a Pre-Trained Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting contribution to the existing literature, but the paper suffers from several shortcomings listed in the following comments.
- The paper should be checked by a native.
- A discussion section should be added.
- The introduction should be updated by recent researches.
- The novelty and contribution should be clearly bolded.
- The authors can consider the following works:
Application of statistical control charts to discriminate transformer winding defects, Electric Power Systems Research 191, 106890.
Transformer Winding Faults Detection Based on Time Series Analysis, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 70, 1-10.
On the detection and estimation of the simple harmonizable processes. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology (Sciences), 39(2), 239-242.
- It’s better to suggest some subjects for future works.
Best regards,
Author Response
Dear Professor.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied the comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised and newly added portion are marked in red in the paper except the rearrangement parts. The main corrections of the paper and the responds to the comments are as following:
1.Response to: “The paper should be checked by a native.”
Response: Thank you so much for your comment. We have tried our best to improve the English presentation, corrected the grammar and typo mistakes. Moreover, we also invited a technical expert to help us to polish the language presentation. We hope the revised version to be more readable.
2.Response to: “A discussion section should be added.”
Response: Thank you very much. Following your advice, we have supplemented a discussion section to distinguish the contribution and limitation of our model (Section 5).
3.Response to: “The introduction should be updated by recent researches.”
Response: Thank you very much for your comments. In the revised version, we follow your advice to clearly bold the novelty and contribution of our paper. We also supplemented the literatures you suggested to the paper.
4.Response to: “ It’s better to suggest some subjects for future works.”
Response: Thank you very much. In the new version, we have pointed our some possible future works that might be focused.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
My comments/suggestions are as follow:
1. The writing needs revision overall.
2. The abstract is flawed at multiple points, e.g: "the huge risks 1 that exist in the manufacture"? "Hence, it’s crucial to recognize the named entity"
3. References are missing because of compatibility.
4. Text clutter in figures making it difficult to understand.
5. Better discretize Chinese and English separately in sections. At few sections it looks redundant to add Chinese annotations. Figure 1 is confusing.
6. Section Related work depicts Literature review?
7. Mathematical model not presented well, equations are not cited in text, pl check.
8. Add abbreviations after full names at start, particularly for sections like 3.2.3 etc.
9. Conclusion missing major things. Mixed with author contributions.
Author Response
Please refer the response letter.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript requires major modifications regarding the scientific and English writing, please avoid the use of contractions and repetitions. All references must be provided.
Author Response
Dear Professor.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied the comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised and newly added portion are marked in red in the paper except the rearrangement parts. The main corrections of the paper and the responds to the comments are as following:
1.Response to: “The manuscript requires major modifications regarding the scientific and English writing, please avoid the use of contractions and repetitions.”
Response: Thank you so much for your comment. We have tried our best to improve the English presentation, corrected the grammar and typo mistakes. We also checked the entire manuscript and eliminated any duplicates. Moreover, we also invited a technical expert to help us to polish the language presentation. We hope the revised version to be more readable.
2.Response to: “All references must be provided.”
Response: Thank you for your helpful comment. We have enhanced the article's overall language structure, added to the discussion chapters and future work, and appended formula and reference references. All abbreviations used in the manuscript have been included at the end of the article, and the images with Chinese accident text information have been redrew.
Reviewer 4 Report
This article suggests a current and attractive topic for the academy. The research is timely and worthwhile. The research problem is clearly defined. The authors provide fresh insight into the field.
The suggested corrections:
The authors need to add a list of references to the manuscript
I suggest the actual references:
https://doi.org/10.3390/s20082324
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2008.02.016
https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9040668
https://doi.org/10.3390/app10249122
Line 450-451: "proposed in this paper , LTP [?], HanLP [?], LatticeLSTM [?], LexiconAugmentedNER [?], and ME-CNER [?] is shown in Table"
The "Discussion" section contains items of research results. Research results are not sufficiently discussed.
Author Response
Dear Professor.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied the comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised and newly added portion are marked in red in the paper except the rearrangement parts. The main corrections of the paper and the responds to the comments are as following:
1.Response to: “The authors need to add a list of references to the manuscript”
Response: Thank you for your good advice. We have formatted the references to ensure that they are fully displayed in the submitted manuscript. Moreover, we have supplemented the references you suggested to the paper.
2.Response to: “The "Discussion" section contains items of research results. Research results are not sufficiently discussed.”
Response: Thank you a lot for pointing out our mistakes. In the revised version, we have added a discussion on the contribution and limitations of this study. At the same time, the "Author Contribution" has been adjusted to the corresponding position.
Reviewer 5 Report
Work presentation is good. Also good work has been done in the manuscript. But once check whole manuscript and make sentence effective.
Author Response
Dear Professor.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied the comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised and newly added portion are marked in red in the paper except the rearrangement parts. The main corrections of the paper and the responds to the comments are as following:
1.Response to: “Work presentation is good. Also good work has been done in the manuscript. But once check whole manuscript and make sentence effective.”
Response: Thank you a lot for your suggestions. We have adjusted and modified the overall language expression and grammatical structure of the article and completed the discussion chapters and future work. The reference format has been promptly changed to address the issue of references being displayed insufficiently. The pictures involving the text of accident information have been redrawn. Additionally, a list of the article's abbreviations is included at the end.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper can be accepted.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has greatly improved and revised version is fit for possible publication.
