Diseased Fish Detection in the Underwater Environment Using an Improved YOLOV5 Network for Intensive Aquaculture
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I found this manuscript quite interesting, as a first experimental trial that will fix help in the future fast disease detection in aquaculture facilities.
Keywords: Please avoid the use of words already reported in the Title, try to replace them with some related ones.
Line 171: Table 1, with relative data, was missing.
Line 250: I think this should be Table 2. The same for the further Tables 3-5.
References: double check the style.
Best regards
The Reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to congratulate the authors because in my opinion, the work is innovative and corresponds to the topics of this journal.
I would like to make some considerations of form and substance.
- The number of significant figures in the expression of results, such as precision expressed as a percentage, must be consistent and appropriate.
- It is not convenient to repeat words from the title in the keywords.
- It is appropriate to indicate the manufacturer, city and country of the equipment used in the work.
- Figures and Tables must appear immediately after being named in the text.
- Latin names must be in italics.
- It is advisable to indicate the design of the experiment.
- In my opinion, the titles of figures 4 and 5 should be more explicit.
- It is necessary to indicate in the text some figures and equations.
- Sections 3.1 and 3.2 should go to materials and methods.
- There is no discussion of the results.
- The conclusions do not seem to be based on the discussion of the results. Rather, they are a way of expressing the results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The changes made by the authors do not correct the deficiencies found in the first review
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has improved sufficiently to be accepted for publication. Thank you very much for the effort