Pipeline Condition Assessment by Instantaneous Frequency Response over Hydroinformatics Based Technique—An Experimental and Field Analysis
, Mohd Fairusham Ghazali 1,2,*, Mohd Fadhlan Mohd Yusof 1 and Muhammad Aminuddin Pi Remli 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Variables should be in italics in Fig. 1.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented experimental work sounds interesting. However, from this reviewer's point of view, the experimental processes need to be explained further. Moreover, there are some minor mistakes in English, for example, "erors". On the other hand, the units are not written correctly, e.g., in the text, "kpa" should be "kPa". My recommendation is to accept the manuscript after these modifications.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper applies a Normalized IKAZ coefficient analysis for automated selection of IMF to analyze the results of leak detection experiments. Sadly the paper is poorly written, the text is practically unreadable, proofreading is indispensable because some passages are hard to understand.
Here are a few questions/comments:
- The style of the citations is not in line with MDPI standards. In the chapters, please cite with "First author et al." instead of listing the first two authors separated by a comma. Regarding the style of the citations in the references, you should list all the authors instead of "First author et al."
For further details, please read this document: https://mdpi-res.com/data/mdpi_references_guide_v5.pdf - Lines 236-240: you defined both HF and VF as "high frequency". What is the difference?
- Figures 11-14 (and similar ones): rather than using 4 numbers for a single block, why don't you use subplots? It would be more compact
- Figure 34: is that a Kurtosis curve? The caption says IKAZ, but it seems to be wrong
- In figure 7, hydrants 1 and 2 are associated with the numbers 1 and 3, in figures 37-40 hydrants 1 and 2 are associated with the numbers 3 and 6. Why it is different?
Since your English language is hard to understand, it is hard to rate the paper at the moment
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I'm happy to see that the ambiguity in the hydrant numbers in the captions has been solved. I'm also happy to see that citation style has been adjusted and analogous figures have been merged. Now the paper is tidier and easier to interpret for the readers.
I'm really surprised to read that your paper has undergone major English editing and proofreading, some sentences are really verbose and cumbersome, barely correct. I wouldn't expect that in a research paper, for which conciseness and clarity are very important.
As an example, the sentences in lines from 804 to 807 and from 828 to 831, are way below the standards for a scientific paper and should definitely be rearranged before publication in my opinion.
But that said, the results of the experimental investigation are interesting and the research design is convincing, I have no other comments.
Author Response
Thank you for pointing this out. I have restructured and rearranged the sentences from line 804 to 807 and line 828 to 831 to make it more simple to achieve standard scientific paper. (line 735 -738 and line 756 – 760).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
