Regional Remote Sensing of Lake Water Transparency Based on Google Earth Engine: Performance of Empirical Algorithm and Machine Learning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have presented a way to check the quality of the water using RS products.

The following points need to address:

1. Novelty of the work need to highlighted and how your method is superior than the other methods.

2. The authors have used the existing algorithms and compared with the traditional models

3. Abstract needs improvement in terms of the results. The conclusion also needs improvement. Limitations of the proposed work is to be elaborated.

4. Algorithms are not presented properly. Comparison with the other methods are to represented in a proper manner.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review report for paper

Paper entitled “

Regional Remote Sensing of Lake Water Transparency based  on Google Earth Engine: Performance of Empirical Algorithm  and Machine Learning

‘’

 

General remarks:

·      Extensive editing of English language required

·      The references cited in the introduction section should be updated

Specific remarks

 

·      In the introduction section, objectives and issues are not clear

·      A chart of methodology should be added and explained in the methodology section and especially the GEE part and the ACOLITE algorithm approach.

·      The methods and algorithms development are not well presented

·      The choice of Landsat images should be explained

·      The use of short period for data acquisition should be explained or you can add other images in the treatment

·      The choice of distance in sampling and the number of points should be explained

·      In the conclusion part it is preferred to see a synthesis of key points and you recommend new ideas and perspectives for future research.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have given the details to all my queries. Now, the readers may not get any confusion while reading the paper.

 

Author Response

We appreciate your help in the article revision process.

Reviewer 2 Report

- The Quality of Figure 1 should improved (resolution and quality of presentation)

- English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

Author Response

• The Quality of Figure 1 should improved (resolution and quality of presentation)
  Response: The quality of Figure 1 has been improved as required.
• English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
  Response: This article had been edited by Elsevier language editing services; we are unable to make more in-depth changes.