Effect of Higher Order Aberrations and Intraocular Scatter on Optical Quality Based on an Optical Eye Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I would offer that the explanations could be easier to understand and the figures and tables are often misnumbered, duplicatively numbered and are inadequate in their visibility. I would ask the authors to clean up the figures and review the writing carefully and then resubmit. I believe the paper may have value and is interesting, but it needs a lot of work.
Author Response
Thank you! With the help of reviewers, I know there are some mistakes in my paper，I correct them to my best of my ability, and then a native English-speaking editor checked my paper. Now, the paper can be understood easier.
Yes, it takes me a lot of time.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of paper no. optics-2133459 with title ‘’Effect of higher order aberrations and intraocular scatter on optical quality based on an optical eye model’’. There are significant editorial errors in the work, this should be corrected before resubmission. Please see my objections to factual errors.
After an initial analysis of the work, I noticed numerous editorial errors. The paper is not prepared for Optics (ISSN 2673-3269) journal.
1. The papers should be prepared in accordance with the template available on the https://www.mdpi.com/journal/optics/instructions website.
‘’ Submission Checklist
Please:
1.Read the Aims & Scope to gain an overview and assess if your manuscript is suitable for this journal;
2.Use the Microsoft Word template or LaTeX template to prepare your manuscript;
(…)”
Please pay special attention to : citation and reference writing style, font, alignment, format of tables and figures.
1. The system shows different records of authors' names than in the paper. There is ‘’Xing heng Zhao’’ in the system and ‘’Xingheng Zhao’’ at paper. There is ‘‘Ming dong Zhang” in the system and ‘’Mingdong Zhang’’ at paper.
2. References to authors in the text should be standardized once authors write with the first letter of their first name (J. Zhao et al. [8]) and once without (Lee et al. [7]). You should write the surname alone without the letters of the first name. Note applies to the entire paper.
3. Fig.1 Flow chart for constructing optical eye model - The figure is made not carefully. I suggest standardizing the size of the rectangles and improving the size of the arrows. Between ‘’Optical eye model’’ and ‘’ Crystalline Lens’’ the two arrows overlap.
4. ‘’Fig.1 Flow chart for constructing optical eye model and ‘’ and ‘’ Fig.2 Scatter parameters in the eye model” - references are missing from the text.
5. The numbering of tables and figures in the text is not correct. For example, there are missing table 3 there are several tables 4, there are three figures numbered 2. References to tables and figures in the main text are missing. This should be completely corrected in the paper.
6. Standardization of the description of tables and figures. Once the authors write "Tab." once ‘’Table” please standardize it. Note also applies to Fig.
7. ‘’Fig.2 Individual eye model (a) structure (b) MTF’’ and ‘’Fig.2 MTF under different conditions (a) different scatter (b) different HOAs’’ - They are unreadable. This should be corrected.
8. The abbreviation used in tables and graphics should be expanded below them. The abstract, main text, tables and figures should be treated as separate parts of the work, therefore, abbreviations each time should be developed in them.
9. Due to the number of abbreviations, a collection of them should be added at the end of the work.
10. The work lacks completed statements:
‘’Funding: All sources of funding of the study should be disclosed. Clearly indicate grants that you have received in support of your research work and if you received funds to cover publication costs. Note that some funders will not refund article processing charges (APC) if the funder and grant number are not clearly and correctly identified in the paper. Funding information can be entered separately into the submission system by the authors during submission of their manuscript. Such funding information, if available, will be deposited to FundRef if the manuscript is finally published.
Please add: “This research received no external funding” or “This research was funded by [name of funder] grant number [xxx]” and “The APC was funded by [XXX]” in this section. Check carefully that the details given are accurate and use the standard spelling of funding agency names at https://search.crossref.org/funding, any errors may affect your future funding.’
ï‚· Author Contributions: Each author is expected to have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work; or have drafted the work or substantively revised it; AND has approved the submitted version (and version substantially edited by journal staff that involves the author’s contribution to the study); AND agrees to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature.
For research articles with several authors, a short paragraph specifying their individual contributions must be provided. The following statements should be used "Conceptualization, X.X. and Y.Y.; Methodology, X.X.; Software, X.X.; Validation, X.X., Y.Y. and Z.Z.; Formal Analysis, X.X.; Investigation, X.X.; Resources, X.X.; Data Curation, X.X.; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, X.X.; Writing – Review & Editing, X.X.; Visualization, X.X.; Supervision, X.X.; Project Administration, X.X.; Funding Acquisition, Y.Y.”, please turn to the CRediT taxonomy for the term explanation. For more background on CRediT, see here. "Authorship must include and be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work. Please read the section concerning the criteria to qualify for authorship carefully".
ï‚· Data Availability Statement: In this section, please provide details regarding where data supporting reported results can be found, including links to publicly archived datasets analyzed or generated during the study. Please refer to suggested Data Availability Statements in section “MDPI Research Data Policies”. You might choose to exclude this statement if the study did not report any data.
ï‚· Conflicts of Interest: Authors must identify and declare any personal circumstances or interest that may be perceived as influencing the representation or interpretation of reported research results. If there is no conflict of interest, please state "The authors declare no conflict of interest." Any role of the funding sponsors in the choice of research project; design of the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results must be declared in this section. Optics does not publish studies funded partially or fully by the tobacco industry. Any projects funded by industry must pay special attention to the full declaration of funder involvement. If there is no role, please state “The sponsors had no role in the design, execution, interpretation, or writing of the study”. For more details please see Conflict of Interest. ‘’
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/optics/instructions
I discuss factual errors and omissions:
1. ‘’Different studies always had different results from previous studies [9].’’ - The sentence fits more under a popular science article. Firstly, the main idea of the sentence is not developed, secondly, they refer to ''different studies'' and in the quote they have one work.
2. ‘’ There were many reasons causing these inconsistence, it may be needed a more consistent and objective method to aid in better understanding of the human eye [10].’’ - The authors cite ''many reasons'' and give one. In addition, the sentence is not developed. In this and the previous sentence, the authors need to develop the main idea more.
3. Introduction - lacks a clear objective for the study.
4. Introduction - Also lacking is a clear description of how the discussed model can help patients. What it can be used for. Please remember that in addition to specialists, this article may be read by people who are not thematically related to the field. In my opinion, such information will improve its impact.
5. ‘’ The optical eye model was constructed with Zemax for optical quality evaluation and the design procedures described in detail in previous studies [11]’’ - Suggests at least adding a little more description.
6. ‘’ The study was approved by the Optometry departmental pro-portionate ethics review committee of Tianjin eye hospital’’ – Add the consent numer.
7. ‘’ were selected from the case library of Tianjin eye hospital as the subjects’’ - Did the patients give informed consent?
8. ‘’All the subjects were no corneal refractive surgery and diseases. ‘’ – ‘’ diseases’’ - Does the word disease refer to corneal or other systemic diseases ?
9. Why the authors chose to study only the effect of uniformly forward scattering of cornea and lens?
10. ‘’ All in all, this study only opened a new way to study the effect of scatter on visual quality. More effort is needed to get more and better results in the future’’ - In my opinion, these sentences undermine the scientific effect of the study. Suggests rewording.
11. In their conclusions, the authors repeated the results too much should be rewritten in full and shortened.
12. ‘’ The optical eye model was firstly adopted to analyze the influence of both scatter and HOAs
on the optical quality of the eye in this study. As a new method, it can be adopted widely for ocular performance diagnosis of the human eye and for clinical vision therapy’’ - These sentences I suggest more elaboration in the discussion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments to authors on optics-2133459
In this manuscript, the authors used a model for the optical eye and modified it to study the optical quality of the eye with both
scatter and HOAs by means of the MTF. They showed that, both HOAs and
intraocular scatter played an essential role in the MTF. They indicated the
effect of intraocular scatter on optical quality which decreases with increasing HOAs, suggesting a
compensatory mechanism between them.
The idea is very informative, I can recommend the publication of the manuscript after major comments,
The author should consider the following recommendations:
1-pleasde add more references to support reference 2:
Higher order aberrations (HOAs) need a
complexly adaptive optics system to correct[2],
Only one reference is not enough
2-numbere your manuscript. So it is easy for the reviwer to follow the numbered lines
3- add more references next to reference 9
4-update all the manuscript with new references from the pertinent scholars
5- in the model section, explain how The depths of the anterior chamber, the crystalline lens and the vitreous body were replaced
with the measured data
Which measered data? Do you have a measured table, how did you measure?
If you mean table 4, then cited in this section
6-in figure 2, MTF under different conditions (a) different scatter (b) different HOAs
What are the values of the different scatter, may be mention, here the scatter you used
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Corrections and responses seem acceptable. The document change tracking mode makes my work much more difficult. The only comment I have is L232 - the authors made two captions for one figure. In this case, the figures should be disconnected or the signatures should be combined and the numbering should be corrected. I have no other comments.
Author Response
Thank you for your kind help, we add the captions in the figure. The paper is shown in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The author addressed all my comments I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript
Author Response
Thank you very much!
