Least-Squares Reverse-Time Migration of Water-Bottom-Related Multiples

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

How to perform accurately seismic imaging is the permanent topic, reflections, or multiple reflections, which is suitable for imaging, it is always the hot research issue. This manuscript may be thought about as a part of the series of the study on the migration of seismic multiple reflections. The authors applied similar methods to perform the migration of multiple reflections(the results were published in Chinese), what is the improvement in the manuscript compared with the previous research result?

1.      It is necessary to add physical explanations to support the advantage of the proposed methods in section 3.1, especially for the comparison parts of Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10.

2.      Why didn’t verify the proposed method by using the other models, such as Sigsbee model, or the actual experiment data?

3.      In Figure 13, for the first peak around 0.012, why the values of the wavenumber are a little different among RTM-WM, LSRTM-WM, and LSRTM? Why the amplitude of the first peak of LSRTM-WM is small than those of RTM-WM and LSRTM? Are the wavenumber spectra only used to support the resolution merit of LSRTM-WM?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

To enhance imaging quality, we established a least-squares-based migration of mul-tiples that we call least-squares RTM of water-bottom-related multiples by using RTM-WM as the modeling and migration engine. But here are questions.

1.  Limited figure examples are used to show the feasibility of the proposed method. And these two figures are not typitcal. More examples showed be used.

2. When comparsions the improvements to other methods, the estimated indicators that can be quantified should be listed to validate the proposed algorithm LSRTMM.

3.  Compared to g Zhang et al. [17] work, how the improvement was made by the proposed method. Besides, the consumed time should be given out.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Broad comments

 

I would think about getting peer review done on this essay because it is fascinating. This article is well written overall. However, several expressions need to be changed because they don't fit the research report. Even so, with a few adjustments, the study procedures and findings are adequately and properly stated to be published.

There has to be a considerable modification to the beginning due to its bad writing. A research study needs to be theoretically sound, therefore where can you find that in this manuscript? The literature review is inadequate.

The research issue should be thoroughly covered in a research paper. Uncertain is the research's addition to the corpus of knowledge. It is advised that the author(s) go back and clarify the research topic and provide a thorough literature evaluation of the relevant phenomena.

 

 

 Keywords

 

• Please revise and make the essential terms clearer. Please make use of the article's highlighted terms as your keywords.

 

Abstract

 

·       The abstract does not adequately describe the paper's conclusions and contributions. It is also necessary to include information regarding the study's methodology and major conclusions or results. As a result, the abstract has to be much enhanced, especially the real findings.

 

Introduction and literature

 

·       In the first part, there are a few repeats. Make any required changes.

 

·       How one research differs from others in the same field of investigation is mostly determined by the literature review.

 

·       It is crucial to do a comprehensive analysis of the literature. What distinguishes this research from others in the field?

 

·       Both the introduction and the literature are brief. Why is this research significant, then?

 

·       The writers should improve the introduction and literature review parts by employing the research report format.

 

·       The attempt will be significantly more successful if more research is done on the methodologies and instruments used to evaluate integrated systems.

 

 

Methodology

 

·       What role does data gathering play here?

·       What kinds of data have you employed?

·       Please make sure that the main body of the text contains all of the information given above.

·       I feel that more details and sources should be used to describe the subject field.

 

Result

 

·       Please separate the result and discussion in accordance with the guidelines for the journal.

·       The results section is brief and ineffective. Please revise and update it.

 

Discussion

 

·       The discussion section is useless and short. Please revise it and enhance it.

 

Conclusion

 

·       The conclusion might be strengthened and changed to place more focus on the study's findings than on any problems or implications. What is unique about research? What are the "limitations of research"? Please put the "Recommendations and Future Work" section at the end.

 

Specific comments

 

·       All figures should have their quality reevaluated. Each one need to have thorough, self-explanatory subtitles.

 

·       The existing format has to be significantly altered in order to satisfy publication standards, such as ensuring that the research is conducted in a sound manner.

 

·       Use this format for references, check your sources, and format your complete work according to the author's style.

 

·       The existing format requires significant modifications in order to adhere to publication standards, such as putting the study together with reliable methodologies.

 

·       The knowledge parts between the materials and procedures, outcomes, and discussion need to be effectively distributed.

 

 

·       All of these crucial topics must be adequately addressed in the Materials and Methods section before the manuscript may be approved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised changes should be highlighted in the re-submitted manuscript.

The improvements made by the proposed method should be quantized with some estimated parameters, but they were not listed in the re-submitted manuscript.

Author Response

• The revised changes should be highlighted in the re-submitted manuscript.

Reply:

Thank you for your critical comments. In the first-round review response, we uploaded the manuscript with changes. And in this round, we revised some descriptions about the advantages of the proposed method and highlighted the changes. Please see the revised manuscript.

• The improvements made by the proposed method should be quantized with some estimated parameters, but they were not listed in the re-submitted manuscript.

Reply:

Thanks again for your constructive comments. In this manuscript, we proposed the least-squares version of RTM-WM, which we called LSRTM-WM. Firstly, compared with RTM-WM, the proposed LSRTM-WM can improve the vertical resolution of the finial images. In the revised manuscript, Fig. 5 or Fig. 10 shows the improvements directly from the imaging profiles and Fig. 6 or Fig. 13 shows the enhancements from the wavenumber spectra. Secondly, the proposed method can eliminate both the order-related and event-related crosstalks, which are partially reduced by LSRTMM. Please see the comparison between Figs 9b and 10b in the revised manuscript. Moreover, for the seismic data are regarded as the secondary sources, the proposed LSRTM-WM is independent of seismic wavelets and can robustly generate high-quality imaging results which are quite similar to those of LSRTM with the accurate wavelet. As to this point, please see the comparison against Figs 10b, 9a and 11 (the imaging profiles) and the comparison in Fig 12 (the convergence curves).

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept in present form

Author Response

Thanks for your detailed comments and suggestions, which improved the manuscript.