Predicting Enthalpy of Combustion Using Machine Learning
, Ali Al-Muslem 1, Nabeel Ahmad 2, Awad B. S. Alquaity 4,5,*, Umer Zahid 1,6 and Usama Ahmed 1,5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The paper length can be reduced. Data quoted from literature, such as Tables 2-12, should not be listed again in this paper, but can be used as supporting information or only the references.
2. The principle of using machine learning to predict combustion enthalpy can be explained in more detail.
3. In the results and discussion section, there are 16 diagrams (Figs. 2-17), but only 14 lines of text to describe the results. Thus it seems that this is not a scientific paper, but a project report. The quality of the paper should be improved.
Author Response
We would like to thank the esteemed reviewer for his/her valuable comments in improving the quality of the manuscript. Please find below our responses to the comments raised.
Comment 1. The paper length can be reduced. Data quoted from literature, such as Tables 2-12, should not be listed again in this paper, but can be used as supporting information or only the references.
Response: Firstly, we would like to thank the esteemed reviewer for his/her thoughtful comments and efforts toward improving our manuscript. The comments and suggestions from the referee have been taken under consideration and have been implemented in the manuscript. Below, the authors have tried to answer the questions and reply to the referee’s comments, point by point.
As per reviewer suggestion, the length of the paper has been reduced only three tables have been used in the revised manuscript. Table 2 has been modified accordingly. The remaining Tables S3-S12 are provided as a supplementary data.
Comment 2: The principle of using machine learning to predict combustion enthalpy can be explained in more detail.
Response: We thank the reviewer for his/her suggestion. We have added more information on the use of machine learning in the introduction for predicting fuel properties and cited appropriate references.
Comment 3: In the results and discussion section, there are 16 diagrams (Figs. 2-17), but only 14 lines of text to describe the results. Thus, it seems that this is not a scientific paper, but a project report. The quality of the paper should be improved.
Response: We thank the reviewer for his/her comment. We agree with the reviewer and have added more discussion on the results.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper discusses the development and application of
a machine learning based model to predict enthalpy
of combustion of various oxygenated fuels.
The manuscript is publishable for the journal,
but it needs improvement.
My comments are as follows:
1. The section of Results & Discussion should be improved.
2. The abstract should be improved to highlight the major contribution
of the paper.
3. The section of Conclusion should be rewritten
to focus on the obtained conclusions.
4. The grammar mistakes in the manuscript should be corrected.
Author Response
We would like to thank the esteemed reviewer for his/her valuable comments in improving the quality of the manuscript. Please find below our responses to the comments raised.
Comment 1: The section of Results & Discussion should be improved.
Response: We thank the esteemed reviewer for his/her comment. We agree with the reviewer and have added more discussion on the results.
Comment 2: The abstract should be improved to highlight the major contribution of the paper.
Response: Thank you for highlighting this point, the abstract of this manuscript has been revised highlighting the major contributions and findings of the papers.
Comment 3: The section of Conclusion should be rewritten to focus on the obtained conclusions
Response: As per reviewer’s suggestion, a modification has been made in the conclusion section focusing on the main conclusive findings.
Comment 4: The grammar mistakes in the manuscript should be corrected.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer for noticing this point and helping us to improve the quality of this manuscript. As per suggestion, the language of this manuscript along with other grammatical mistakes has been revised carefully according to a native speaker's suggestion.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised version has been improved, which has solved my concerns during the review of the first draft and is recommended for publication.
