All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The reviewers have found that your paper has been significantly improved and is suitable for publication. The algorithm you proposed in the paper using multitemporal data is interesting to the remote sensing science community.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jörg Oehlmann, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The reviewer does not have further comments.
The reviewer does not have further comments.
The reviewer does not have further comments.
The reviewer does not have further comments.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have made proper revisions. I have no other comments.
The reviewers suggested a major revision. I concur with the comments. The authors must provide more details regarding the design and applications of the algorithm in image segmentation of difficult scenarios.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
Please see the attached file.
Please see the attached file.
Please see the attached file.
Please see the attached file.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The article is good and well explained. A new algorithm for multi-temporal PolSAR image segmentation is proposed in this paper. It could be useful to solve the segmentation problem in some specific difficult scenes, e.g. cropland, where crops of different types and different sowing times are easy to show similar characteristics on single-temporal PolSAR images.
1. Line 297: More details in preprocessing steps should be given, such as window sizes, geographical coordinate system, software.
2. Line: 304: How to set the minimum segmentation region parameter M? The value of M (192) in the third date is different from values (235) in another two dates. What is the reason?
3. Line 339: The number of segmentation regions is set to 47. However, it can be seen from Figure 15 that the segmentation accuracy reached a peak at 50 and stabilized in the range of 40-120. Why don’t you choose 50 as the number of segmentation?
4. Line 386-388: The specific parameter setting should firstly ensure the realization of over-segmentation, and secondly consider the influence of the number of regions on the operation cost. How to set the specific parameter in practice. Could you give more details?
5. It is better to show the correct segmentation map with bright colors in Figures 14 and 19. In addition, the segmentation accuracy should be given in Figure 14.
6. The current discussion part presents segmentation accuracies with single-temporal PolSAR images and different temporal combinations. It is more like the result part. In the discussion part, the authors could discuss what are their specific research findings or some influence factors. Also, the relation of this study to previous studies to show its significance is high will be more convincing and it is recommended.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.