Laser Remote Sensing of Seismic Wave with Sub-Millimeter Scale Amplitude Based on Doppler Characteristics Extracted from Wavefront Sensor

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This nice paper presents a theoretical analysis of laser remote sensing of seismic wave with sub-millimeter scale, and real laboratory experimentation to validate this approach. The paper is very well written, the results are well presented and discussed.

The only comment concerns the abstract that is perhaps too short. One or more sentences on the laboratory measurements should be added.

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript deals with the extraction of useful information from front-end sensors to measure seismic activity. The authors' team proposed a Doppler model for laser soil scanning to detect earthwaves and predict earthquakes.

The hypothesis is thoroughly tested and backed up by mathematical apparatus. 

The manuscript considers a significant problem and thus deals with actual problematics. (from the application viewpoint and from the theoretical viewpoint). The manuscript is prepared at a good level (introduction, method description, experimental results, illustrations, bibliography list). It is of adequate length, and the chapters are in logical order.

The results are clearly presented and compared to other studies. The article could be helpful for the readers if accepted. 

The manuscript can be accepted after minor editing (see the bellow remarks).

 

What should be corrected:

1. In the abstract, you are using the term "this study". The authors should decide whether this would be an article, a case study, etc.
2. The formulas (equations) should not use "exp" and should be written in a standard format.
3. Only some parameters are described below the equations. It is also hard to find in the text what individual parameters in equations mean.
4. Chapter 3.2 has a typo - the first letter should be capitalised.
5. Chapter 3.3 has a typo - the first letter should be capitalised.
6. Generally, authors should carefully read the instructions on how to prepare the manuscript because there are some formatting errors (i.e., the figures are not referenced as Fig. but as a Figure in the text according to the MDPI template). The same applies to equations.
7. Not all references are in the desired format - i.e. missing DOI.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English appears to be OK.

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached Word doc

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As mentioned in the attached Word doc

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors use the word "ore" in the first line. This should beexplained if the machine is being used to explore a mine.

The Appendix A is still written according to the previous version of the manuscript. It does not make a lot of sense and ref [33] is not helpful for readers who do not read Chinese.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is understandable

Author Response

Please see in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf