A Novel Robust Method for Solving CMB Receptor Model Based on Enhanced Sampling Monte Carlo Simulation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper proposes an effective way to address an existing analytical limitation in the field and uses a real case to show the application.
The overall paper could definitely benefit from revision in English use of words and sentence formatting.
Abstract:
The first sentence in the abstract (lines 16-20), which is the problem statement, is tedious and cumbersome. It should be re-written into shorter, yet more straightforward sentences.
Line 27: is “verity” the correct word?
The whole abstract needs to be re-written. The sentences lack consistency and are too long to follow.
Section 1: Introduction:
Line 104: the verbs must change accordingly to the subject.
Lines 99 to 115 include two separate paragraphs about Monte Carlo method. They could be joint into one.
Lines 108-113: The sentence reads hard and is too long.
Line 129: “Comparison” should not be capitalized.
Section 2:
For lines 243-247, please provide sufficient references.
Lines 267 to 270 should be expressed clearly, as they are hard to follow.
The description of the enhance MC simulation, and Gibbs sampling seems scattered. It should have a more concise order. This section should be re-written more methodical. The description of section 3 is very fluent. I suggest that the mathematical explanation of section 2 regarding the MC method be re-written in the same fashion of section 3.
Section 4:
Is there a reason for the too many decimal points numbers in Table 1? What is the proper significant figures in this sort of problems?
Lines 322-327 should be re-written due to being vague, and too long.
In Table 3, why the row about “cooking” has no input?
Line 345, “collinear” should be “collinearity”.
The explanation of the realistic case does not clearly define how the enhanced method could address the original problem that stated in the abstract. A new paragraph that explicitly explains the usefulness of the proposed method can significantly increase the consistency and clarity of the paper.
Section 5: Conclusion:
The sentence in line 365-366 should be re-written.
The conclusion lacks limitations of the current study, and possibilities for future works. Separate paragraphs must be added.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The paper proposes an effective way to address an existing analytical limitation in the field and uses a real case to show the application.
The overall paper could definitely benefit from revision in English use of words and sentence formatting.
Abstract:
The first sentence in the abstract (lines 16-20), which is the problem statement, is tedious and cumbersome. It should be re-written into shorter, yet more straightforward sentences.
Line 27: is “verity” the correct word?
The whole abstract needs to be re-written. The sentences lack consistency and are too long to follow..
Response 1: The English words, sentences and grammar of the whole paper have been carefully revised. The first sentence in the abstract (lines 16-20) has been re-written into shorter and more straightforward sentences. Line27: “verity” has been corrected to “verify”. The whole abstract has been re-written.
Point 2: Section 1: Introduction:
Line 104: the verbs must change accordingly to the subject.
Lines 99 to 115 include two separate paragraphs about Monte Carlo method. They could be joint into one.
Lines 108-113: The sentence reads hard and is too long.
Line 129: “Comparison” should not be capitalized.
Response 2: The verbs in line 104 have been changed accordingly to the subject. Two separate paragraphs in lines 99 to 115 have been jointed into one. The sentence in lines 108-113 has been re-written into shorter and more straightforward sentences. “Comparison” has been corrected to “comparison”.
Point 3: Section 2:
For lines 243-247, please provide sufficient references.
Lines 267 to 270 should be expressed clearly, as they are hard to follow.
The description of the enhance MC simulation, and Gibbs sampling seems scattered. It should have a more concise order. This section should be re-written more methodical. The description of section 3 is very fluent. I suggest that the mathematical explanation of section 2 regarding the MC method be re-written in the same fashion of section 3.
Response 3: Sufficient references have been provided in lines 243-247. Lines 267 to 270 have been expressed clearly. The descriptions of the enhance MC simulation and Gibbs sampling have been re-written and section 3 has been re-written.
Point 4: Section 4:
Is there a reason for the too many decimal points numbers in Table 1? What is the proper significant figures in this sort of problems?
Lines 322-327 should be re-written due to being vague, and too long.
In Table 3, why the row about “cooking” has no input?
Line 345, “collinear” should be “collinearity”.
The explanation of the realistic case does not clearly define how the enhanced method could address the original problem that stated in the abstract. A new paragraph that explicitly explains the usefulness of the proposed method can significantly increase the consistency and clarity of the paper.
Response 4: The decimal points numbers in Table 1 is appropriate for CMB receptor model. Lines 322-327 have been re-written. Table 3 has been completely displayed. “collinear” in line 345 has been corrected to “collinearity”. A new paragraph that explicitly explains the usefulness of the proposed method has been added to the end of section3.
Point 5: Section 5: Conclusion:
The sentence in line 365-366 should be re-written.
The conclusion lacks limitations of the current study, and possibilities for future works. Separate paragraphs must be added.
Response 5: The sentence in line 365-366 has been re-written. A new paragraph has been added for the limitations of the current study, and possibilities for future works.
Reviewer 2 Report
The submission by Hou et al is well written, presented, and provides an interesting new method to solve CMB receptor model. Their proposed method seems to overcome the difficulties associated with currently used methods and is a promising step in the right direction. The description of the method and the sample solution for a real data-set helps to solidify applications of the method to this reviewer and I think the method shows promise. The authors have provided results from their evaluations that should inspire confidence in other researchers to adopt this technique. There are some issues that I would like to bring to the attention of the authors to further strengthen their submission:
1. A discussion on potential shortcomings/limitations of their proposed method should be included to aid other researchers in adoption of their technique.
2. There are some issues with the formatting of subscripts and superscripts in chemical symbols and they should be fixed before final submission.
3. Table 3 on Page 12 seems to have been cutoff. Please fix that before final submission.
4. Figure 1 probably needs to be reworked to match the Journal’s expectations of artwork.
5. Line 287 has text in red color, that needs to be fixed.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: A discussion on potential shortcomings/limitations of their proposed method should be included to aid other researchers in adoption of their technique.
Response 1: A new paragraph which discussed the potential shortcomings/limitations of the proposed method has been added to the end of section 5 to aid other researchers in adoption of the proposed technique.
Point 2: There are some issues with the formatting of subscripts and superscripts in chemical symbols and they should be fixed before final submission.
Response 2: Some issues with the formatting of subscripts and superscripts in chemical symbols have been fixed.
Point 3: Table 3 on Page 12 seems to have been cutoff. Please fix that before final submission.
Response 3: Table 3 on Page 12 has been completely displayed.
Point 4: Figure 1 probably needs to be reworked to match the Journal’s expectations of artwork.
Response 4: Figure 1 has been reworked to match the Journal’s expectations of artwork.
Point 5: Line 287 has text in red color, that needs to be fixed.
Response 5: The red text in line 287 has been fixed.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Even though some parts of the review notes are answered, the overall paper could definitely benefit from punctuation revision, and sentence formatting.
Abstract:
The first sentence in the abstract (lines 16-17), which is the problem statement, is not stated clearly.
Section 1: Introduction:
Lines 109-113: The sentence reads hard and is too long.
Line 98-101: There are too many commas, and clauses. This part should be re-written into straight forward sentences. Too many words of “if, but, and” after each other!
Section 2:
Line 232: There is no “meaning” is wrong.
Line 290-291: The sentence structure is wrong and should be modified.
Section 5: Conclusion:
The sentence in line 365-366 should be re-written.
The conclusion lacks limitations of the current study, and possibilities for future works. Separate paragraphs must be added.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Abstract:
The first sentence in the abstract (lines 16-17), which is the problem statement, is not stated clearly.
Response 1: The first sentence in the abstract (lines 16-17) has been re-written.
Point 2: Section 1: Introduction:
Lines 109-113: The sentence reads hard and is too long.
Line 98-101: There are too many commas, and clauses. This part should be re-written into straight forward sentences. Too many words of “if, but, and” after each other!
Response 2: The sentence in the lines 109-113 has been re-written. The sentence in the lines 98-101 has been re-written.
Point 3: Section 2:
Line 232: There is no “meaning” is wrong.
Line 290-291: The sentence structure is wrong and should be modified.
Response 3: Line232: “the results is no meaning” has been corrected to “the results did not meet the requirements”. The sentence structure in lines 209-291 has been modified.
Point 4: Section 5: Conclusion:
The sentence in line 365-366 should be re-written.
The conclusion lacks limitations of the current study, and possibilities for future works. Separate paragraphs must be added.
Response 4: The sentence in line 365-366 has been re-written. In the conclusion, a separate paragraph has been added to express the limitations of the current study and possibilities for future works.
