Geographical Information System Enhancement Using Active Learning-Enhanced Semantic Segmentation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presents a "Geographical Information System Enhancement Using Active Learning-enhanced Semantic Segmentation".
The topic is interesting and fits well with the scope of the journal. There are, however, many inconsistencies within the manuscript that must be clarified prior to acceptance for publication can be recommended.


1. English should be checked.

2. Clarify the research gap at the end of the introduction.

3. I suggest using the word "South Korea", please check the whole manuscript and revise where necessary.

4. Abstract should be enhanced (Please mention the critical findings in the Abstract).

5. Further clarification is needed regarding the validation.

6. "Figure 2. Illustration of neural networks: (a) Unet and (b) SegNet, which both have input dimensions of 256 x 256 x 3 and output dimensions of 256 x 256".

Explanation is needed regarding the input and output dimensions.

7. "Table 2. and Table 4." Further explanation is needed. Also, please discuss the error propagation.

8. Discussion should be enhanced with the related studies.

English should be checked.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is unfocused, disorganized, and not linguistically concise. Therefore, the manuscript is not recommended for acceptance. The specifics are as follows:

1. The first part is not written clearly and logically. This part does not clearly explain the problem to be solved. The purpose and significance of the study are not clearly explained. In addition, there is no organization and in-depth analysis of the current state of research. It is suggested to revise it.

2. The second part of the theoretical analysis is not deep enough and not innovative enough. It is suggested to revise it.

3. The third part does not specify the platform used for the study. It is suggested to revise it.

4. The third part of the experiment is simple and insufficient to illustrate the validity of the study. In addition, the less data lacks research comparison and data rigor. It is suggested that the content of the planning experiment be reworked.

5. The fourth part does not explain the strengths and significance of the study, as well as the vision for future work. It is suggested to revise it.

6. The pictures are not beautiful enough in the manuscript. Some pictures are not focused and distinguishable. For example, the content of the two pictures is not clearly expressed in Figure 3.

7. The format of references is not standardized. Reference to the requirements of this journal should be revised.

8. The language expression in many places in the whole manuscript is not standardized and the content is not concise.

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Review Report

         Geographical Information System Enhancement Using Active 2 Learning-enhanced Semantic Segmentation

 

In this article, a methodology to tackle a Geographical Information System Enhancement Using Active 2 Learning-enhanced Semantic Segmentation is proposed.

 

·       The abstract provides the information as per the title and is well written and gives a summary of the research done in this article.

·       Section 1 introduction is  up to the standard, necessary information is integrated and flow of introduction nasty.

·       The objective of the article and need to propose it are explained in the introduction section.

·       Mathematical symbols used in the article are properly explained and written in the text.

·       From where the authors have taken the data for the numerical computation.

·       What is the real-life application of the proposed algorithm?

·       Conclusion is systematically written.

·        Overall, the presentation of this article is meets up to the standards.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for the review. Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The logical structure of the manuscript is problematic. Some of the language is not standardized. Therefore, the manuscript is suggested to be accepted. The specifics are as follows:

1. There are many errors with the formatting of pictures in the manuscript. For example, the flow chart of Figure 1 is not standardized. The format of Figure 3 is inconsistent with the format of other pictures in the manuscript, especially the format of the figure notes is problematic. The figure notes of Figures 4-12 are indented and inconsistent with the preceding texts. It is suggested that the formatting of the images should be standardized in the manuscript.

2. The manuscript "3. Result and Discussion" has no clear distinction of sections, the structure is rather vague. It is suggested to revise it.

3. The order of placement of Figures 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12 is inconsistent with the order described in the text. It is suggested that the narrative order of the pictures in the manuscript be described as a-b-c-d, in the same order as the placement.

4. What is the purpose of Figure 8? There is nothing in the manuscript as shown in Figure 8.

5. The language expression in many places in the whole manuscript is not standardized and the content is not concise. In addition, it is suggested not to use the first person, such as I or we.

Author Response

Thank you for the review. Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf