Image Fusion Algorithm Selection Based on Fusion Validity Distribution Combination of Difference Features
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have the following comments: From the analysis of the presented results, it is difficult to find any regularities that would allow the selection of the most optimal fusion algorithm when considering a different set of images, e.g. in non-destructive testing. This makes the practical use of the method difficult. The approach to further work presented in the conclusions is interesting.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presents the research of a dual-mode infrared image fusion algorithm. As I understand it, fusion is supposed to take advantage of the differences in both types of images. It seems that the fusion algorithm is chosen adaptively.
The article contains some interesting research. However, it is difficult to assess, because it is written in an incomprehensible language. The article cannot be published in its current form. The sentences should be shortened and simplified. I do not mean perfect English, but simple and understandable language. It is not known what is the subject in the sentence and how it relates to the rest of the sentence.
It would be useful to define in the introduction what the Authors understand by particular terms, e.g. diverse attribute, difference feature, fusion validity distribution, intuition possible sets, relative better effect, distribution construction, distribution.
In Figure 1, some descriptions are not visible.
Perhaps, it would be worth reducing the amount of data shown in tables.
The figures are very small, the font in their description is too small. It is difficult to analyze the data presented in Figures.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled “Image fusion algorithm election based on fusion validity distributions combination of difference features” presents an approach towards selecting the optimal fusion algorithm for infrared images based on intuition set ordering. There are some intriguing features in the project; however, in its current state, the document is hardly readable and requires a thorough English revision to be considered for publication. Throughout the manuscript, I noticed several typos, conjugation mistakes, etc. The paper uses the words “difference/different” quite a lot, and several times these words are mixed up. From the abstract, I noticed that there are also major narrative issues with the manuscript. Instead of starting with a positive tone explaining the properties and advantages of image fusion or difference features, authors start by claiming which is “a common problem”. It Is unclear what are authors talking about at this stage. By the end of the introduction, it is hard for the reader to understand the purpose of the presented methods, although there are notable efforts to show the contributions of the paper.
Some mistakes found are:
Line 15: This paper proposed -> This paper proposes
Line 17: Finally, The -> Finally, the
Line 29: so static algorithm is difficult… -> static algorithms are
Line 88: The paper put -> This paper puts
Line 107: Their meaning is as follow -> These are defined as
I suggest authors use either an online service or the one provided by MDPI to correct the manuscript and rephrase many of the sentences. This will surely improve the readability of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made many changes and the article was improved. However, professional language proofreading services are essential and necessary.
Author Response
Please see the attchment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Indeed, I can see that the authors have addressed most of the comments of all reviewers, however, I can still notice that a thorough review of grammar and writing style is required. For instance, the first sentence of the abstract says “can not” instead of “cannot”. Also, the first sentence of the introduction is very confusing, as the concepts of “infrared polarization imaging” and “infrared intensity imaging” are being defined by means of those same words (i.e. infrared polarization … through infrared polarization). Thus, this first sentence does not provide any context to the reader in its current state. I appreciate that the authors tried to correct the errors that I commented on in my previous review and that they highlighted these and many other corrections throughout the manuscript; however, I still believe that there is a need to thoroughly review the whole document using a professional external service. After that, I will assess the technical aspect of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for addressing my particular concerns from the previous review. However, as mentioned before, that wasn’t an exhaustive list of errors, and thus, the manuscript still presents some major flaws in style and spelling. For instance, the sentence in line 21 has “Infrared” capitalised (unlike the rest of the manuscript). The sentence in line 29 is hard to read, as it is unclear who’s the subject on this statement (i.e. it starts with Only select the appropriate… but who has to select, or what is being selected?). In addition, references are unstandardized, and some paragraphs are unaligned (like the one after figure 1). I insist on authors using a professional service to thoroughly review and amend the whole manuscript before checking the technical aspect.
