A Prediction Model of Marine Geomagnetic Diurnal Variation Using Machine Learning

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below.We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in yellow in revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Thank you for your endorsement.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Thank you for your endorsement.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thank you for your endorsement.

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Improved the description of the methodology in the article to make it clearer.

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thank you for your endorsement.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Thank you for your endorsement.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:[ Lines 41, 44,48, 55, 60, 67, 73, 208: When referencing an article by entering the first author, enter as follows: Author [N°], e.g. Walter [1]; Roden [2]; etc.]

Response 1: Lines 55, 57,62, 73, 80, 87: We were really sorry for our careless mistakes. Thank you for your reminder，we have changed it as you suggested.

Comments 2: [Lines 111-119:  Correct the size of the letters.]

Response 2: Lines 135-144: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the the size of the letters.

Comments 3:[Lines 155-156: Writing problems.]

Response 3:Lines 180-184: We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion

Comments 4:[Line 177: Say: … bellow [13]  …. Must say: …as follows [13]:]

Response 4:Lines 188: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the “bellow” into “as follows”

Comments 5:[Line 181: Say: … bellow]  …. Must say: …as follows:]

Response 5:Lines 189: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the “bellow” into “as follows”

Comments 6:[Lines 184: Say: …  and (14), where Ti is ..   must say …. And (14), Ti is …]

Response 6:Lines 211: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the “where Ti is” into “Ti is”

Comments 7:[Table 1:  say: Distance/km.     must say:  distance (km)]

Response 7:Lines 229: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the “Distance/km” into “ distance (km)”

Comments 8: [Line 236: Say:  ….is presented below.    Must say:  ….is presented in Figure 5.]

Response 8:Lines 265: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the “is presented below” into “is presented in Figure 5”

Comments 9:[Figure 5: Put  units on axis ΔT.]

Response 9:Lines 266: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we have put  units on axis ΔT.

Comments 10:[Line 255: Say  In Figure6.     Must say:  In Figure 6.]

Response 10:Lines 285: We feel sorry for our carelessness. In our resubmitted manuscript, this error has been corrected. Thanks for your correction.

Comments 11:[Line 264: Say: …  is presented below:……   must say: …. Is presented in Figure 8:]

Response 11:Lines 292: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the “is presented below” into “Is presented in Figure 8:”

Comments 12:[Line 276:  Say: Figure9.   Must say:  Figure 9.]

Response 12:Lines 304: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the “Figure9” into “ Figure 9”

Comments 13:[Line 322: Improve wording, indicating that 5 experiences will be carried out where in each case one of them is the main station and the rest will be the training stations.]

Response 13:Lines 353: We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:Requires minor improvements in writing.

Response 1:Thanks for your suggestion. We have tried our best to polish the language in the revised manuscript.

5. Additional clarifications

Lines 402: We think show the confidence level of their statistical method used this is an excellent suggestion. We have added confidence to the article.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below.We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in yellow in revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

Corresponding references have been added to the text.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Must be improved

Changes have been made to the structure of the article's introduction in response to review comments.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Appropriate revisions have been made in accordance with the review.

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Improved the description of the methodology in the article to make it clearer.

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Changes have been made in the exploratory section of the article in response to the review comments.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

An outlook for the future has been provided in the concluding section of the article in response to review comments.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [The introduction section needs enrichment. The article is missing relevant references to the problem. ]

Response 1: Lines 37-54: We think this is an excellent suggestion. We've included a further explanation of the problem in the article.

Comments 2: [Also, in the introduction the authors should mention briefly the main contribution of the work, and describe the adopted methodology step by step.]

Response 2: Lines 37-54: We gratefully appreciate for your valuable suggestion. We've mention briefly the main contribution of the work, and describe the adopted methodology step by step.

Comments 3:[ Please note at the end of the section the structure of the submission. ]

Response 3: Lines 94-110: Thank you for your rigorous consideration. We have changed the structure at the end of this section.

Comments 4: [ Please add a add a separate section entitled "Related Work" and discuss the state-of-the-art of the subject under consideration highlighting the motivation of this research. ]

Response 4: Lines 95-110: We totally understand the reviewer’s concern. We have add a separate section entitled "Related Work".

Comments 5: [Rename the section Method to Methodology. ]

Response 5: Lines 111: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the “Method” into “Methodology”.

Comments 6: [Please, demonstrate the environment of the experiments. ]

Response 6: Lines 349-352: We think this is an excellent suggestion. We've demonstrated the environment of the experiments.

Comments 7: [In the discussion section provide a comparative analysis with previous studies based on features, datasets and algorithms. ]

Response 7: Lines 441-460: Thank you for your rigorous consideration.We have included a discussion of comparisons with previous studies as you requested.

Comments 8: [ Also, in the discussion section summarize the limitations and the potential issues of this study, emphasizing the application nature of the proposed method in practice. Also, the overall merit of the proposed approach should be highlighted.]

Response 8: Lines 480-482: We think this is an excellent suggestion. We have added the overall merit of the proposed approach should be highlighted.

Comments 9: [ Conclusions can discuss future research directions and extensions of the study.]

Response 9: Lines 505-507: We gratefully appreciate for your valuable suggestion. We have added  discuss future research directions and extensions of the study.

Comments 10: [The references are not up to date. It should be within the last five years. ]

Response 10:Lines 521-529: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We have checked the literature carefully and added more references into the INTRODUCTION part in the revised manuscript. 

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:Extensive editing of the English language is required.

Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. We have tried our best to polish the language in the revised manuscript.