24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者西西弗斯_Dux将赠送您 75 个金币

西西弗斯_Dux

铜虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 142.6
帖子: 55
在线: 25.8小时
虫号: 29025485
注册: 2022-03-10
专业: 石油天然气开采

[求助] 求助，审稿意见该怎么回复！！已有2人参与

小白第一次投sci，等了两个月等到这样的评论，该如何修改完善呢？
1.The theoretical bases of the article are difficult to follow because they are written just citing the literature sources of the different algorithms used in the work without explaining in an articulated way what they are about, how they are used and, above all, why they are used with corrosion data.文章的理论基础很难理解，因为它们只是引用了工作中使用的不同算法的文献来源，而没有以清晰的方式解释它们的含义、它们的使用方式以及最重要的，为什么它们用于腐蚀数据。
2.Also, from the explanations given in the manuscript it would be impossible to reproduce the procedures proposed, should someone other than the authors wanted to do it. For example, the authors talk about “features”, without explaining what they mean. Are they corrosion defect depths or areas? Or perhaps remaining pipeline thickness? Or are they referencing pipeline/environment parameters that determine the corrosion rate? This is what one would assume when seeing the initials in Figure 2, in which, by the way, there are no explanations either.此外，从手稿中给出的解释来看，如果作者以外的人想这样做，就不可能重现所提出的程序。例如，作者谈到“特征”，但没有解释它们的含义。它们是腐蚀缺陷的深度还是面积？或者是剩余的管道厚度？或者它们是指决定腐蚀速率的管道/环境参数？这是人们在看到图 2 中的首字母时会假设的，顺便说一句，其中也没有任何解释。

3.Later on, in Section 4.2.1, the authors finally talk briefly about specific calculations, using data that were collected elsewhere, not by the authors themselves. On page 4, line 45, it is stated: “The output data of the ELM is the corrosion rate of the pipeline”.
This is where the central question appears. What corrosion rate do the authors use to validate the algorithms? A lot of articles have been written trying to develop methods and models to estimate the rate of corrosion in pipelines, and that remains an open topic. Everything seems to indicate that the authors calculate the corrosion rate as the simple division of the maximum depth of the localized corrosion defects by the reported in [30] service time of the pipelines. This would give a simplistic value of dubious usefulness since localized corrosion does not necessarily begin immediately after the installation of the ducts, given that they are coated and cathodically protected. Not to mention that the linear model of corrosion defects growth has been repeatedly questioned and there is agreement in at least part of the community that it does not work to provide a correct description of the progress of localized corrosion in pipelines.
So if the corrosion rate data used to validate the algorithms are not reliable, the conclusions obtained in this work are misleading at best.后来，在第 4.2.1 节中，作者终于简要讨论了具体的计算，使用的数据是从其他地方收集的，而不是作者自己收集的。在第 4 页第 45 行，它指出：“ELM 的输出数据是管道的腐蚀速率”。
这就是核心问题出现的地方。作者使用什么腐蚀速率来验证算法？已经有很多文章试图开发方法和模型来估计管道的腐蚀速率，但这仍然是一个悬而未决的话题。一切似乎都表明，作者将腐蚀速率计算为局部腐蚀缺陷的最大深度除以[30]中报告的管道使用时间。这将给出一个可疑的简单值，因为局部腐蚀不一定在管道安装后立即开始，因为它们有涂层和阴极保护。更不用说腐蚀缺陷增长的线性模型一再受到质疑，至少有一部分社区一致认为，它不能正确描述管道局部腐蚀的进展。
因此，如果用于验证算法的腐蚀速率数据不可靠，那么这项工作得出的结论充其量也只是误导。

回复此楼