Hierarchical Electrode Switching Device Design for Distributed Single-Channel Electrical Resistivity Tomography System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In introduction [5] is repeated
L45, In the past,... has focused
The referencing in lines 47 to 53 is not according to the journal standard
In this study, L54
You need to make the conclusion in a separate section and explain one by one
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Thanks for carefully reviewing and giving suggestions to help the manuscript meet the publication quality. We have valued your suggestion and revised the manuscript accordingly. The tracking change had been enabled to help finding the changes. Please check the point to pint response along with the revised manuscript. Please contact us with any question, suggestions or concerns. Thanks again for you spending time to review the manuscript.
Point 1: In introduction [5] is repeated
Response: Sorry for the typo. It had been corrected. (Line 59 in the manuscript with tracking change.)
Point 2: L45, In the past,... has focused
Response: The grammar had been corrected. (Line 63 in the manuscript with tracking change.)
Point 3: The referencing in lines 47 to 53 is not according to the journal standard.
Response: Sorry for the careless. We had them corrected.
Point 4: In this study, L54
Response: We had them corrected.
Point 5: You need to make the conclusion in a separate section and explain one by one.
Response: We separated the conclusion and discussion into two parts and both parts were revised to explain the results step by step. We also add the pros and cons with the newly designed HESD in the discussion part. Please referring the line 298-333 in the manuscript with tracking change.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript presents an electrode switch for ERT system. ERT is a traditional geophysical method for subsurface resistivity mapping. The paper describes the design of the circuit and contains technical details.
The main comments are as follows,
- The title should be limited a single channel ERT system, the multichannel channel system has much more benefits than it and its ESD has different design.
- Some brief introduction of the ERT method should be given.
- The introduction focus on the background of ERT, instead of the ESD.
- The last paragraph of the introduction needs rewriting. It does not describe the method and the structure of the manuscript. It mainly talks about the ESD is better than others.
- Page 3, L91 – L103, and Tab 1 can be deleted. They do not have much useful information.
- Page4, L105, table 1? Should it be figure 1?
- Figure 4 (b) is not easy to understand, a new figure is suggested
- Figure 5 can be deleted. Figure 6 shows the same thing.
- Figure 7 Is unnecessary, the connection can be easily found in Figure 6.
- Figure 9 is not necessary. Figure 8 is enough.
- Page 7, L195 – 211 and Table 2, makes it too difficult to understand. “Due to one electrode can only be connected to a specific line in the bus, a second stage is required to connect it other line.”
- There are no Results for the paper, some table list the reduced number of relays or weight, size. And a ERT profile demonstrated the second stage can work is suggested.
- The title ‘Discussion and Conclusion’, but no discussion is found. Discuss about the disadvantage of the design or so is suggested.
- The references are all cited in the first 2- 3 pages of the paper, there is no citation anymore.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Thanks for carefully reviewing and giving suggestions to help the manuscript meet the publication quality. We have valued your suggestion and revised the manuscript accordingly. The tracking change had been enabled to help finding the changes. Please check the point to pint response along with the revised manuscript. Please contact us with any question, suggestions or concerns. Thanks again for you spending time to review the manuscript.
Point 1: The title should be limited a single channel ERT system, the multichannel channel system has much more benefits than it and its ESD has different design.
Response: We added the single channel in the title to avoid confusion and We rewrite the introduction part and add the current usage of the ERT and compared the single channel and Multi-channel ERT to help the read better understand the background of ERT and scenario for the newly designed a hierarchical ESD (HESD). (Line 29-84 in the manuscript with tracking change)
Point 2: Some brief introduction of the ERT method should be given.
Response: We added the introduction of the ERT method as you suggested. Please see line 28-31 in the manuscript with tracking change.
Point 3: The introduction focus on the background of ERT, instead of the ESD.
Response: Please refer the response to point 2. We added the introduction of the ERT method as you suggested. Please see line 28-31 in the manuscript with tracking change.
Point 4: The last paragraph of the introduction needs rewriting. It does not describe the method and the structure of the manuscript. It mainly talks about the ESD is better than others.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. Method and structure were added accordingly (line 73 - 84).
Point 5: Page 3, L91 – L103, and Tab 1 can be deleted. They do not have much useful information.
Response: The table and content are deleted as you suggested. The corresponding context are revised accordingly.
Point 6: Page4, L105, table 1? Should it be figure 1?
Response: Table had been removed and please see response 5.
Point 7: Figure 4 (b) is not easy to understand, a new figure is suggested.
Response: Figure 4(b) had been revised and figure legend added to make it more informative and easy understandable way. (See page 5 in page 5).
Point 8: Figure 5 can be deleted. Figure 6 shows the same thing.
Response: Old figure 5 and figure 7 had been removed and highlight on figure 6 had been added to make it easy to understand (page 6 and page 7).
Point 9: Figure 7 Is unnecessary, the connection can be easily found in Figure 6.
Response: Please see response 8.
Point 10: Figure 9 is not necessary. Figure 8 is enough.
Response: Figure 9 had been removed and context are revised accordingly.
Point 11: Page 7, L195 – 211 and Table 2, makes it too difficult to understand. “Due to one electrode can only be connected to a specific line in the bus, a second stage is required to connect it other line.”
Response: We rewrote the result part (line 222-244) to avoid potential confusion from readers.
Point 12: There are no Results for the paper, some table list the reduced number of relays or weight, size. And a ERT profile demonstrated the second stage can work is suggested.
Response: Table 2 added to compare the electrode required in various ESD design and explanation also added as shown from line 222 to 246.
Point 13: The title ‘Discussion and Conclusion’, but no discussion is found. Discuss about the disadvantage of the design or so is suggested.
Response 13: We separated the conclusion and discussion into two parts and both parts were revised to explain the results step by step. We also add the pros and cons with the newly designed HESD in the discussion part. Please referring the line 298-338 in the manuscript with tracking change.
Point 14: The references are all cited in the first 2- 3 pages of the paper, there is no citation anymore.
Response 14: More reference had been added (1, 2, 5, 27 to 29).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I think it is a good write-up. However, the writer needs to improve on the structure and organization of this article. Below are my comments:
Line 28: Please re-write as “commonly used geophysical prospecting manner which is widely applied in hydrology, ocean exploration, engineering and environment…
Please re-write line 36-38. It is not well written. The sentence is confusing.
Please re-write line 42 and correct the repeating reference.
Line 47-50, please check the reference format. Not as superscript please.
Line 58, “were used in total”
Section 2.1: Please use same font as the other sections
Line 86-99, Please maintain the same reference format. Do not use superscript
Section 4. I think you meant to say Conclusion and not “Discussion and Conclusion” You can’t have discussion and conclusion in the same section
Please compare your result to what is reported in literature by making a tabular form.
What is the feasibility of optimization of this device?
Thank you
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Thanks for carefully reviewing and giving suggestions to help the manuscript meet the publication quality. We have valued your suggestion and revised the manuscript accordingly. The tracking change had been enabled to help finding the changes. Please check the point to pint response along with the revised manuscript. Please contact us with any question, suggestions or concerns. Thanks again for you spending time to review the manuscript.
Point 1: Line 28: Please re-write as “commonly used geophysical prospecting manner which is widely applied in hydrology, ocean exploration, engineering and environment….
Response: We had it changed accordingly. Please referring the line number 34 to 36 in the manuscript with tracking change.
Point 2: Please re-write line 36-38. It is not well written. The sentence is confusing.
Response: Sorry for the confusion. We rewrite the introduction part and add the current usage of the ERT and compared the single channel and Multi-channel ERT to help the read better understand the background of ERT and scenario for the newly designed a hierarchical ESD (HESD). (Line 29-84 in the manuscript with tracking change)
Point 3: Please re-write line 42 and correct the repeating reference.
Response: Sorry for the typo. It had been corrected. (Line 59 in the manuscript with tracking change.)
Point 4: Line 47-50, please check the reference format. Not as superscript please
Response: Sorry for the careless. We had them corrected.
Point 5: Line 58, “were used in total”
Response: The grammar had been corrected. (Line 78 in the manuscript with tracking change.)
Point 6: Section 2.1: Please use same font as the other sections.
Response: Sorry for the careless. We had them corrected.
Point 7: Line 86-99, Please maintain the same reference format. Do not use superscript
Response: Sorry for the careless. We had them corrected.
Point 8: Section 4. I think you meant to say Conclusion and not “Discussion and Conclusion” You can’t have discussion and conclusion in the same section.
Response: We separated the conclusion and discussion into two parts and both parts were revised to explain the results step by step. We also add the pros and cons with the newly designed HESD in the discussion part. Please referring the line 298-333 in the manuscript with tracking change.
Point 9: Please compare your result to what is reported in literature by making a tabular form.
Response: We add the comparison of different electrode required in various ESD design in the results part and a new table added to help the reader better understand the benefit of the newly designed a hierarchical ESD (HESD). Please referring the line number 282 to 291 and the table 2 in the manuscript with tracking change.
Point 10: What is the feasibility of optimization of this device?
Response: The feasibility discussion added in the results part (line 283-291). Table 2 and Appendix A (figure A1 and figure A2) were also added to help the reader to understand the benefit of the newly designed a hierarchical ESD (HESD).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
