A Deep Transfer Learning-Based Network for Diagnosing Minor Faults in the Production of Wireless Chargers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper: A Deep Transfer Learning-based Network for Minor Fault Diagnosis in Wireless Charging Equipment Production. Please improve the language, some ideas are not clear. The format and fonts are not well-organized. Moreover, I also see that the paper is missing important content and requires many modifications. I have the following concerns about this paper:

(1)    The abstract should be further improved. “Wireless charger production is critical for wireless charging applications of energy storage…”? Wireless Charging Equipment Production? Needs clarifying. Overall, not well-written.

(2)    Is not deep transfer learning network-based CNN and LSTM (DTLCL) simply the CNN-LSTM model? The contributions of this work should be clarified in the abstract and introduction parts. In addition, the focus in the introduction should not only focus on the models but the application of the model. This is important, we can use the model for different kinds of applications. Why did you use this method? More details and works about those issues should have been included. 

(3)    Some figures should be improved in terms of resolution and font type like Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 4…

(4)    The equation should be referenced. Why do you use bold fonts for all the equations?

(5)    The results of this work should be compared against SOTA results in the literature, not only against each other.

(6)    More detailed information about the implementation of CNN-LSTM is needed. Like the CNN, LSTM, CNN-LSTM structures should be added and how CNN-LSTM are combined, why are using the CNN-LSTM.

(7)    The Conclusion Part should include the mean results of this work, mainly numerical ones. The current one is not referring to the contributions or the results.

(8)    Add more details about Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, and Fig. 7.

(9)    Explain: “the DTLCL model of LSTM removed is called DTLCL _A and the DTLCL model of CNN removed is called DTLCL _B”.

Other issues:

-Please check the references carefully. There are mistakes. is “IEEE Transactions on Electrical and Electronic Engineering” a journal? Is reference 4 in English or Chinese? You need to mention. Change the references’ format.

-Better mention the terms in the text. In addition, Nomenclature can be added in a table before the introduction.

Can be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have presented a deep transfer learning-based network for minor fault diagnosis in wireless charging equipment production. The experimental results are presented and high accuracy is obtained for the proposed method. However, there are some modifications, which should be considered in the manuscript.

-        While the manuscript mentions that diagnosing minor faults in bearings and gearboxes is a meaningful but challenging task, it lacks a precise problem statement. What specific challenges are being addressed?

-        The manuscript mentions two datasets (Dataset A and Dataset B) but does not provide enough detail about these datasets. More information is needed about the data sources, collection methods, and characteristics to ensure the experiments are reproducible.

-        The manuscript mentions contributions briefly, however, it is important to explicitly state and highlight the unique contributions of the research in a dedicated section.

-        The English level of the manuscript should be revised carefully. There are several grammar errors and typos in the text for instance: “For example, the shaft of the wireless charger a very important part in wireless charging applications …”

-        Some numbers and texts cannot be read easily in Figs 9-12. Kindly correct these figures and improve the quality.

-        It is suggested to revise the abstract. The abstract is lengthy and lacks conciseness. It should be a clear and concise summary of the paper's key contributions and findings

 

 

-        The English level of the manuscript should be revised carefully. There are several grammar errors and typos in the text for instance: “For example, the shaft of the wireless charger a very important part in wireless charging applications …”

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed most of the comments carefully.

The paper is improved and can be considered for publication in Applied Sciences.

Can be Improved a bit. 

Author Response

I wish to thank the reviewers for your useful comments. In the manuscript， the comments for reviewer 1 are all highlighted in red.

comment 1: Comments on the Quality of English Language Can be Improved a bit.

response: Many thanks for your comment. Based on your valuable suggestion, we have carefully revised the English level of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have addressed my comments and the manuscript can now be accepted after some minor modifications.

-        The download URL can be written as a reference in the manuscript, not in the text.

-        Still some numbers and texts (100 percent in figures) cannot be read easily in Figs 9-12. Kindly correct these figures and improve the quality.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf