Archaeology and Restoration of Costumes in Tang Tomb Murals Based on Reverse Engineering and Human-Computer Interaction Technology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper provides an analysis on a topical issue, both in terms of science and business practice.
The main shortcoming of this paper is the lack of a clearly defined research methodology. I suggest creating an additional section in the paper that describes the research procedure and provides a graphical representation of the research methodology logic diagram.
The numbering of the tables is incorrect. There are two tables 1 and table 2 is unreadable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Strengths:
 (+) The paper is well-written.
 (+) The problem is important.
 (+) The problem is well-motivated.
 (+) The problem is well-defined.
 (+) The figures are appropriate.

Weaknesses:
 (-) References are inadequate.
 (-) The introduction must be improved.
 (-) The related work section must be enhanced.
 (-) Some improvements are needed in the description of the method.
 (-) Table formatting issue should be fixed
 (-) The title of the paper is too long. In general, it is not recommended to exceed 10 words. 

 

The literature review looks incomplete. Several relevant references are missing. The paper should be updated to include more recent references, preferably from the last 2 or 3 years.

==== INTRODUCTION ==== 

The authors need to better explain the context of this research, including why the research problem is important.

The introduction should clearly explain the key limitations of prior work that are relevant to this paper.

Contributions should be highlighted more. It should be made clear what is novel and how it addresses the limitations of prior work. 

Paper organization should be discussed in the last para of this section

==== RELATED WORK ==== 

The authors should explain clearly what  the differences are between the prior work and the solution presented in this paper. Discuss latest and relevant studies. 

==== METHOD ==== 

A novel solution is presented but it is important to better explain the design decisions (e.g. why the solution is designed like that). Authors can check the role of AI and deep learning in restoration of image quality.

It is important to clearly explain what is new and what is not in the proposed solution. If some parts are identical, they should be appropriately cited and differences should be highlighted.

The proposed approach can be presented in algorithmic for and then it should be described. 

==== EXPERIMENTS ==== 

The experiments should be updated to include some comparison with newer studies, if any. 

Human interaction part is not clear.

==== CONCLUSION ==== 

Some text must be added to discuss the future work or research opportunities.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed most of the concerns. The work can be accepted.

Check for Typos and grammatical mistakes .