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.
All questions and concerns have been addressed. The reviewer committee recommends accepting the paper.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jörg Oehlmann, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
I have no other questions.
Please carefully address all comments from reviewers, particularly regarding innovations and validations. There are also some presentations issues which should be improved as well.
The literature is not sufficient. For example, line number 53-57 and 65-66 do mention "some studies". Which studies? What are the gaps which motivated you to conduct this research?
Introduction is but messy--Reorganise it. The authors has tried to provide gaps to highlight motivation but the discussion is too divergent. Why solving this problem is really important? There are few recent studies that you have missed to include.
What outcome is actually expected?
The research gaps are not well presented. What authors want to achieve is not well stated. Section 2, provides all details in one section briefly. For example, if you discussed about datasets, why not to provide more details about it (especially, reliability concerns about the dataset). Validation, which should be one of the main focus, is presented briefly.
Results and discussion is okay but they are not well connected with previous and further sections. Elaborate each section and make a link between them.
Conclusion need to be modified--what is the key take away message? Do your findings has applicability in industries and how it could provide value to them?
The validation is provided but there are many threats to validity, which are not addressed. Provide the details about different threats and mention that how you actually addressed them (if you have) or failed to address. Can you study be treated as valid and accurate? The discussion is not sufficient to build this trust. You must explicitly mention it in detail.
I hope that incorporating my feedback and restructuring your article, will help to improve your research submission.
The paper has deficiencies in English expression, sentence structure, and tense usage. Please have the article proofread by an expert.
Literature is not systematically reviewed and presented in line with current research. Please add a more in depth introduction and literature review by studying more recent publications and explain what this research conveys differently.
The authors are advised to include main contributions or research questions to better highlight the novelty of the research.
The motivation to carry out this work is missing. The introduction section should include a discussion on this aspect.
In the present form it in very difficult to understand various equations. The authors must elaborate different variables or parameters in each equation before writing it.
The authors must include a discussion on why the eigenvalue decomposition method is used. Are there other methods available? Can they be used? Why or why not?
Para line 37-44: the authors need to establish the strong background for this claim. Some recent work along with the challenges should be included. Is it one of these challenges? Establish this with support of similar work references in this regard.
Para line 46-51: Similarly, authors need to support this claim with recent work.
Para line 53-57: References required.
Authors have included an elaborative discussion on validation of their work.
The missing aspect is:
Compare this research's findings with recent state-of-the-art and explain the benefits of the approach
The authors are advised to include main contributions or research questions to better highlight the novelty of the research.
The motivation to carry out this work is missing. The introduction section should include a discussion on this aspect.
In the present form it in very difficult to understand various equations. The authors must elaborate different variables or parameters in each equation before writing it.
The authors must include a discussion on why the eigenvalue decomposition method is used. Are there other methods available? Can they be used? Why or why not?
Para line 37-44: the authors need to establish the strong background for this claim. Some recent work along with the challenges should be included. Is it one of these challenges? Establish this with support of similar work references in this regard.
Para line 46-51: Similarly, authors need to support this claim with recent work.
Para line 53-57: References required.
In the present form, the literature reported is very poor. Authors are advised to include a full dedicated section on latest literature. They should also mention which research gaps they are addressing.
The paper has deficiencies in English expression, sentence structure, and tense usage. Please have the article proofread by an expert.
Literature is not systematically reviewed and presented in line with current research. Please add a more in depth introduction and literature review by studying more recent publications and explain what this research conveys differently.
Compare this research's findings with recent state-of-the-art and explain the benefits of the approach
This manuscript developed an algorithm for the segmentation of electrical network facilities from ALS point clouds. The English language should be improved to ensure that others could clearly understand your text. So, you should use more short sentences instead of inserting too many long ones. The literature review in Section 1 Introduction needs to be more logical. Thank you for providing the source code or tools to allow this methods to be reproduced easily.
This manuscript should clearly define the research question, which must be relevant and meaningful. The knowledge gap being investigated should be identified. The designed experiment is somewhat simple, and more data and results in the experimental area are not presented.The results of power line structure classification based on ALS mainly carry out qualitative analysis, which lacks the rigor of quantitative analysis.In addition, this method also has the defect of relying more on prior knowledge and manual judgment.
The experimental data should be robust, statistically sound, and controlled. The conclusions should be appropriately stated, should be connected to the original question investigated, and should be limited to those supported by the results. The method and its meaning in this study should be more clear.
Some issues or questions could be addressed:
1) How to distinguish between 'good' and 'poor' classification results? What are the quantitative criteria?
2) Line 190, the sentence of 'An idealised hanging chain ... assumed ... follows ...' should be clear.
3) Line 287, 'range form ...' should be 'range from ...'.
It is recommended to check the language spelling through the whole manuscript.
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.