Study on the Equivalent Density Tool and Depressurisation Mechanism of Suction-Type Depressurisation Cycle

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a work that at first sight seems interesting. However, after reading the paper it is not clear to me what the real contribution of the manuscript is, what is new about it and why it should be accepted. This should be rectified for publication.

Some comments are indicated:

In the abstract and throughout the paper, use the International System of Measurement. Also, be careful with the multiplication symbol, it is not the correct one. A space should also be left between the number and its unit.

The referencing system is not the one indicated in the journal.

Line 38, a space is necessary between ‘2008, Feng...’.

A possible timeline image synthesising the research described in the introduction may be of interest to readers.

The main objective and expected contribution is not clear and well highlighted in the introduction. This should be added in the last paragraph.

Figure 1 is incomplete, dimensions and scale of the image should be indicated. Otherwise indicate that it is only schematic. This section should be better described.

Authors should be careful when separating words. In many cases, words are found together (e.g. footnote to Figure 1). This may be due to the use of an English language translator and the subsequent non-monitoring of the translated text.

In the denominator of Equation 3 some symbols have been lost.

The results presented are well known and expected, what does this research contribute, what is the improvement over existing research, this should be made clear in the discussion of the results, this is not a technical report.

Units in tables and graphs in brackets.

In the conclusions include the limitations of the research and how to solve them in the future.

Author Contributions does not comply with the requirements of the journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article needs to be revised. The writing in general is very coarse and unrefined, and there are grammatical errors resulting from a cut-and-paste of the online translation.

Author Response

Point by point responses to the reviewers’ comments:

 

Dear Editor,

On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate editors and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Study on the equivalent density tool and depressurization mechanism of suction-type depressurization cycle”.

We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revisions which are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version and point by point responses to the reviewers’ comments which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.

We hope that the revised version of the manuscript is now acceptable for publication in your journal. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you.

 

Best regards,

MeiPeng Ren

 

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author

1. In the abstract and throughout the paper, use the International System of Measurement. Also, be careful with the multiplication symbol, it is not the correct one. A space should also be left between the number and its unit.

Response:

Based on expert review, international units of measurement have been used in the abstract section as required by the journal, and the incorrect use of multiplication symbols in the text has been corrected to the correct format. The number and the unit have been changed as required so that there should also be a space between the number and its unit. The corrected part of the text is also marked in red.

2. The referencing system is not the one indicated in the journal.

Response:

The incorrect use of reference formatting in the text has been corrected to the correct format based on expert review. The revised part of the reference section in the text has also been marked in red.

 

3. Line 38, a space is necessary between ‘2008, Feng...’

Response:

Based on the expert review comments, a correction has been made to address the missing space between ‘2008’ and ‘Feng’ in line 38. The corrected section is highlighted in red.

4. The main objective and expected contribution is not clear and well highlighted in the introduction. This should be added in the last paragraph.

Response:

Based on the comments of the expert reviewers, in response to the failure to emphasise the main objective in the introduction and to co-lineate with it. A clarification has been made in the last paragraph of the introduction. The clarification has been marked in red.

 

5. Figure 1 is incomplete, dimensions and scale of the image should be indicated. Otherwise indicate that it is only schematic. This section should be better described.

Response:

Based on the expert review, in response to Figure 1 not indicating the size and ratio of the image nor stating that Figure 1 is a schematic, modifications have been made here to clarify that Figure 1 is only a schematic of the tool, detailing how the tool components work. Modified components are marked in red.

 

6. Authors should be careful when separating words. In many cases, words are found together (e.g. footnote to Figure 1). This may be due to the use of an English language translator and the subsequent non-monitoring of the translated text.

Response:

Based on the expert review, the separating words issue has been modified and the footnote in Figure 1 has been revised. Modifications are highlighted in red.

 

7. In the denominator of Equation 3 some symbols have been lost.

Response:

Based on the expert review, changes were made to address the missing symbol in the denominator in Equation 3. The modified part has been marked in red.

 

8. The results presented are well known and expected, what does this research contribute, what is the improvement over existing research, this should be made clear in the discussion of the results, this is not a technical report.

Response:

In response to the expert review, changes have been made to address well-known narrative issues with the presentation of the results. The revised parts are marked in red.

 

9. In the conclusions include the limitations of the research and how to solve them in the future.

Response:

According to the expert review, the limitations of the study and measures to address them were not stated in the conclusions. Changes have been made and marked in red in the article.

 

10. The article needs to be revised. The writing in general is very coarse and unrefined, and there are grammatical errors resulting from a cut-and-paste of the online translation.

Response:

Based on the expert review, changes have been made throughout this article to address rough writing and grammatical issues.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work does not adequately address key issues. For instance, in the motivation section, the authors claim that "it is difficult to predict when these rhythm disturbances occur within 48 hours," but they do not provide any justification for how the 48-hour timeframe was determined. Additionally, they mention a "complex quantum-fuzzy expert timeframe," which is not thoroughly explained later in the study. This raises further questions, such as how quantum mechanical concepts are integrated into fuzzy theory. It also prompts inquiries about how quantum entanglement operates in a physical sense.

Author Response

Point by point responses to the reviewers’ comments:

 

Dear Editor,

On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate editors and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Study on the equivalent density tool and depressurization mechanism of suction-type depressurization cycle”.

We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revisions which are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version and point by point responses to the reviewers’ comments which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.

We hope that the revised version of the manuscript is now acceptable for publication in your journal. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you.

 

Best regards,

MeiPeng Ren

 

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author

1. In the abstract and throughout the paper, use the International System of Measurement. Also, be careful with the multiplication symbol, it is not the correct one. A space should also be left between the number and its unit.

Response:

Based on expert review, international units of measurement have been used in the abstract section as required by the journal, and the incorrect use of multiplication symbols in the text has been corrected to the correct format. The number and the unit have been changed as required so that there should also be a space between the number and its unit. The corrected part of the text is also marked in red.

2. The referencing system is not the one indicated in the journal.

Response:

The incorrect use of reference formatting in the text has been corrected to the correct format based on expert review. The revised part of the reference section in the text has also been marked in red.

 

3. Line 38, a space is necessary between ‘2008, Feng...’

Response:

Based on the expert review comments, a correction has been made to address the missing space between ‘2008’ and ‘Feng’ in line 38. The corrected section is highlighted in red.

4. The main objective and expected contribution is not clear and well highlighted in the introduction. This should be added in the last paragraph.

Response:

Based on the comments of the expert reviewers, in response to the failure to emphasise the main objective in the introduction and to co-lineate with it. A clarification has been made in the last paragraph of the introduction. The clarification has been marked in red.

 

5. Figure 1 is incomplete, dimensions and scale of the image should be indicated. Otherwise indicate that it is only schematic. This section should be better described.

Response:

Based on the expert review, in response to Figure 1 not indicating the size and ratio of the image nor stating that Figure 1 is a schematic, modifications have been made here to clarify that Figure 1 is only a schematic of the tool, detailing how the tool components work. Modified components are marked in red.

 

6. Authors should be careful when separating words. In many cases, words are found together (e.g. footnote to Figure 1). This may be due to the use of an English language translator and the subsequent non-monitoring of the translated text.

Response:

Based on the expert review, the separating words issue has been modified and the footnote in Figure 1 has been revised. Modifications are highlighted in red.

 

7. In the denominator of Equation 3 some symbols have been lost.

Response:

Based on the expert review, changes were made to address the missing symbol in the denominator in Equation 3. The modified part has been marked in red.

 

8. The results presented are well known and expected, what does this research contribute, what is the improvement over existing research, this should be made clear in the discussion of the results, this is not a technical report.

Response:

In response to the expert review, changes have been made to address well-known narrative issues with the presentation of the results. The revised parts are marked in red.

 

9. In the conclusions include the limitations of the research and how to solve them in the future.

Response:

According to the expert review, the limitations of the study and measures to address them were not stated in the conclusions. Changes have been made and marked in red in the article.

 

10. The article needs to be revised. The writing in general is very coarse and unrefined, and there are grammatical errors resulting from a cut-and-paste of the online translation.

Response:

Based on the expert review, changes have been made throughout this article to address rough writing and grammatical issues.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been significantly improved from the first version.

However, the number of references and the depth of discussion is still very limited. Only 14 references in the entire contribution. A more in-depth review of the current state of knowledge should be undertaken.

Author Response

Point by point responses to the reviewers’ comments:

 

Dear Editor,

On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate editors and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Study on the equivalent density tool and depressurization mechanism of suction-type depressurization cycle”.

We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revisions which are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version and point by point responses to the reviewers’ comments which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.

We hope that the revised version of the manuscript is now acceptable for publication in your journal. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you.

 

Best regards,

MeiPeng Ren

 

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author

1. However, the number of references and the depth of discussion is still very limited. Only 14 references in the entire contribution. A more in-depth review of the current state of knowledge should be undertaken.

Response:

We thank the experts for their review, and based on the comments made by the experts, this paper has been revised and completed as required. References part of the research is not deep enough, the number of literature is less, this paper has been re-revised, in accordance with the requirements of the in-depth research into the literature has been increased to 19, and in the introduction and other references in the red, look forward to the experts to check.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors address most of the comments

Author Response

Point by point responses to the reviewers’ comments:

 

Dear Editor,

On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate editors and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Study on the equivalent density tool and depressurization mechanism of suction-type depressurization cycle”.

We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revisions which are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version and point by point responses to the reviewers’ comments which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.

We hope that the revised version of the manuscript is now acceptable for publication in your journal. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you.

 

Best regards,

MeiPeng Ren

 

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author

1. However, the number of references and the depth of discussion is still very limited. Only 14 references in the entire contribution. A more in-depth review of the current state of knowledge should be undertaken.

Response:

We thank the experts for their review, and based on the comments made by the experts, this paper has been revised and completed as required. References part of the research is not deep enough, the number of literature is less, this paper has been re-revised, in accordance with the requirements of the in-depth research into the literature has been increased to 19, and in the introduction and other references in the red, look forward to the experts to check.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx