An MTBWO Algorithm Based on BiGRU Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a thorough exploration of a machine health monitoring system, showcasing a well-designed architecture, and incorporating advanced technologies. While the methodology is generally clear, clarification of technical abbreviations is warranted for better comprehension. The proposed MTBWO-BiGRU model, coupled with L1 regularization and Bray-Curtis distance, demonstrates significant advantages in reliability prediction, supported by comprehensive experimental analyses. The integration of a bio-inspired metaheuristic algorithm, MTBWOA, adds an intriguing dimension to optimization. Practical testing with real data from SMT Corporation strengthens the paper's applicability to real-world scenarios. Overall, the paper offers valuable contributions, but addressing minor clarity issues would enhance its accessibility.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Literature Review

The literature review in the current manuscript is insufficient. The introduction does not provide sufficient background information and fails to include all relevant references.

A more systematic review of the relevant literature is required.

 

2. Introduction of Existing Methods

The introduction should summarize and compare existing methods, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages, instead of simply listing them.

 

3. Clarification of Major Contributions

It would be beneficial to include a summary of the major contributions of the study in the introduction.

 

4. Figures

The majority of the figures in the manuscript are blurry, and the font used in the figures is inconsistent with the main text.

Clearer figures are required, and it would be better if the font in the figures could be consistent with the main text.

 

5. Analysis of Experimental Results

In addition to presenting the experimental results, the manuscript should also provide some analysis and summarization of the data.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English writing of the manuscript needs further improvement.

It is recommended that the authors carefully proofread the manuscript to ensure there are no grammatical or spelling errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

thank you for your submission. it is very interesting to read. 

However there are multiple things to improve. 

- for any signal processing and data driven method a broad data base is essential. Using one dataset of 15 bearings (of the same kind?) is not enough. TRaining and test on other public available data is mandatory to include. If not, this is only another paper that is optimized (and withit the algorithm and its layout) to specific data.

- english only in screen shorts

- further and better description of the algorithms and data. this is too short to understand without intensive study of the references.

Thank you for updating and considering also the remarks in the attached pdf

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

some words like 'fresh' or 'innovative' should be avoided. generally good

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the previous round of revisions, the author did not fully address my concerns. On the one hand, the review of related works in the Introduction section remains insufficient, with only a total of 6 references included in the entire Introduction. I believe the author should add a separate section dedicated to Related Works to comprehensively summarize relevant literature. On the other hand, many figures in the paper are still not clear enough. The authors must replace them with more visually distinct and clear illustrations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English expression in this article is not authentic enough, and moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your suggestion. I have increased the number of references in the introduction to 11 and provided a comprehensive analysis. I have enlarged the Fig 10.11. If there are any other figures that you cannot see clearly, please make sure to let me know.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the previous round of revisions, the authors did not fully address my concerns. The current version of the Introduction is too simplistic, failing to articulate the development context of the research area and the primary challenges it currently faces. Additionally, the majority of the figures in the manuscript are blurry. I hope the authors can replace them with clearer images.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your review and suggestions. We have added the introduction about the challenge the bearing RUL facing and adjusted the figures. Also due to our lack of English proficiency, we have previously purchased MDPI English editing services. If there are any grammatical deficiencies in English, can you point out where they are?

Sincerely

Round 4

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general, this paper is well-written with good organization. However, the contributions need to be clarified more clearly, and presentations can be improved.

In addition, minor editing of English language required.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Editor

Thank you for your review and suggestion.

We have modified the contributions and edited the English language. If you have any questions, please contact me.

Sincerely