Bearing Fault Diagnosis with Variable Speed Based on Fractional Hierarchical Range Entropy and Hunter–Prey Optimization Algorithm–Optimized Random Forest

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper titled “HPO-RF Based on FrHRE and Its Application in bearing fault diagnosis under variable speed conditions”, proposed a new fault diagnosis method for the rolling bearings in machines under variable speed. The topic is certainly worthwhile for a sound study.

Authors are suggested to address the following comments to improve the article in the revised version.

1. It is suggested to avoid any Abbreviations in the title. Please address this.

2. First page, line 29 and line 36. Authors should avoid the block citations, like [1-10] and [11-17] but add specific citations close to the connect. This will help the readers to trace the source.  

3. Some grammar mistakes exist in the writing, such as line 27-28, and 32-33. Other mistakes exist throughout the paper. Authors are suggested to go for a proof-reading of English.

4. Too long descriptions for the basic theory. Please cut these short to mainly present the original work and results.

5. Figure 13. Please explain the possible reasons for different resistivity for the three phase. How do you think this will affect the performance and reliability of the HTS cable, and how to address this issue in the future?

6. Table 2. Why do you choose 150 samples for each fault case? How will the results be changed with more or less samples? Add more analysis on this to show the stability of the model.

7. Please justify on the features extracted from the vibration signal by the proposed method.

8. Line 401-402. It is so vague analysis and description. Please justify on clearly distinguished at most cases, why and how? Better to explain for the readers.

9. Authors should add more analysis on the sensitivity study.

10. Authors are suggested to read this paper, which also presents intelligent fault detection and protection method.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.08.008

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 1. What are the contributions of the paper? 

2. Research design should be appropriate. 

3. English language and style are acceptable/minor spell check required.

4. need some more literature reviews on specific research work.

5 There should be the appropriate results and discussion section 

6. lack of references  

7 . Plagiarism could be accepted below 20%, but the paper contains 21% plagiarism. 8 . What are the contributions of the paper?

9 . Serious revisions are made to be authors to improve the quality of this manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have properly addressed my comments. 

One more imorovemnt to be done. The introduction should give a brief summary of the state of the art in the field, which does not mean to review previous papers one by one and present what they hae done. Please shorten this part. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised article contains 22% plagiarism.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx