Supervised Learning-Based Image Classification for the Detection of Late Blight in Potato Crops

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. There is a mismatch between the title and the proposed architecture, which uses CNN as a backbone

2. It is a very long title and I would like it to be short and specific. 

3. As far as I know, there is no result, conclusion, or future in the abstract, please provide a summary of these points.

4. Please make sure that the SVM is defined at the beginning of the paper in order to avoid any confusion.

5. In the introduction, the contribution needs to be explained in more detail

6. Despite the fact that the method and material are very clear, it would be better if a flowchart was also provided.  

7. In Figure 2, the proposed algorithm is clearly shown, but it doesn't mention how it is going to be implemented on this data

8. It seems that the results are very interesting, however, more implementation results need to be provided

9. There is a discrepancy between the results 93.2% and the conclusion results.

10. I would like to put some references to year 2022 in the update 

Author Response

Point 1: There is a mismatch between the title and the proposed architecture, which uses CNN as a backbone.

Response 1: The tittle and name of figure 2 were updated

Point 2: It is a very long title and I would like it to be short and specific.

Response 2: The tittle was changed

Point 3: As far as I know, there is no result, conclusion, or future in the abstract, please provide a summary of these points.

Response 3: The abstract was updated with relation to results, conclusion and future work.

Point 4: Please make sure that the SVM is defined at the beginning of the paper in order to avoid any confusion.

Response 4: The application of SVM was added in the abstract

Point 5: In the introduction, the contribution needs to be explained in more detail

Response 5: The introduction was updated with the final contributions, impact and final beneficiary

Point 6: Despite the fact that the method and material are very clear, it would be better if a flowchart was also provided.  

Response 6: The flowchart was provided

Point 7: In Figure 2, the proposed algorithm is clearly shown, but it doesn't mention how it is going to be implemented on this data

Response 7: We added the implementation and flow data en the algorithm

Point 9: There is a discrepancy between the results 93.2% and the conclusion results.

Response 9: The accuracy was changed in the conclusions results 

Point 10: I would like to put some references to year 2022 in the update 

Response 10: New references 2022 were added

Reviewer 2 Report

1) The title is a littel log and vague. I suggest that the title is changed to something like "Supervised learning-based image classification for the detection of late blight potato crops"

2) Keywords: Classification mage processing--> Classification, Image processing

3) Abstract: 3) the Strengthening of agricultural---> 3)Strengthened agricultural


4) Line 19: "Potato crops are one of the main agricultural activities..."--> Please consider rewriting.

5) Line 27: "late 26 blight or potato gout" should be explained here. Maybe the authors want to add a figure as well.

6) Line 29: "According to Bravo, I. A., et al., the"-- requires reference.

7) Line 50: "According to Mishra, 50 S., et al.," requires reference.

8) Line 67: "AlexNet model" requires reference.

9) I would suggest that the paragraph between lines 38 and 58 be moved to an indepent section entitled "Related Works". The new section can include a paragraph (or maybe a subsection) to explain the shortcomings of the existing literature that motivates the authors for this research.

10) I suggest a paragraph appended to the introduction to explain the rest of the paper.

11) Before the paragraph explaining the organizattion of the rest of the paper, two subsections (or simply two elaborative paragraphs) are needed. the first paragraph/subsection should explain the objectives including the parameters to be improved, etc. The second one should mention the achivements including percentage of improvements, etc.

12) Line 152: "Figure 6 shows the application of the segmentation algorithm using the thresholding 152 method."--> This figure does not show hte application of the algorithm. It shows the result obtained from the application of the algorithm.

13) Equation 1 requires a left side and explanation. The same goes with Equaton 2 through Equation 6.


14) Figure 9 is of poor quality. It looks lie it has been copied. The same goes with figure 10.


15) Fonts in the figures are not consistent.


16) I might be wrong, but It looks like Table 3 is actually a figure. If this is the case, it should be regenerated in the form of a real table.


17) The section "Conclusion" is too long. part of it can be dropped or moved to the Section "Results and Discussions". Instead a few lines can be added to suggest future works.

Author Response

Point 1: The title is a little log and vague. I suggest that the title is changed to something like "Supervised learning-based image classification for the detection of late blight potato crops"

Response 1: The tittle was changed

Point 2: Keywords: Classification mage processing--> Classification, Image processing

Response 2: Elements were changed 

Point 3: Abstract: 3) the Strengthening of agricultural---> 3)Strengthened agricultural

Response 3: The abstract was updated with relation to results, conclusion and future work.

Point 4: Line 19: "Potato crops are one of the main agricultural activities..."--> Please consider rewriting.

Response 4: The phrase was rewrite 

Point 5: Line 27: "late 26 blight or potato gout" should be explained here. Maybe the authors want to add a figure as well.

Response 5: The phrase was explained.

Point 6:Line 29: "According to Bravo, I. A., et al., the"-- requires reference.

Response 6: Reference inserted

Point 7: Line 50: "According to Mishra, 50 S., et al.," requires reference.

Response 7: Reference inserted and updated

Point 8: Line 67: "AlexNet model" requires reference.

Response 8: Reference was inserted and paraphrased

Point 9: I would suggest that the paragraph between lines 38 and 58 be moved to an indepent section entitled "Related Works". The new section can include a paragraph (or maybe a subsection) to explain the shortcomings of the existing literature that motivates the authors for this research.

Response 9: We include a new section “Related works” , too aggregate another paragraph that motivate the authors to apply this research.

Point 10: I suggest a paragraph appended to the introduction to explain the rest of the paper.

Response 10: paragraph was included

Point 11: Before the paragraph explaining the organizattion of the rest of the paper, two subsections (or simply two elaborative paragraphs) are needed. the first paragraph/subsection should explain the objectives including the parameters to be improved, etc. The second one should mention the achivements including percentage of improvements, etc.

Response 11:We include the explaining organization, add two paragraphs explaining objectives and parameters.

Point 12: Line 152: "Figure 6 shows the application of the segmentation algorithm using the thresholding 152 method."--> This figure does not show hte application of the algorithm. It shows the result obtained from the application of the algorithm.

Response 12: We changed the label of figure 6

Point 13: Equation 1 requires a left side and explanation. The same goes with Equation 2 through Equation 6.

Response 13: We update the explanation of equation 1 to 5

Point 14: Figure 9 is of poor quality. It looks lie it has been copied. The same goes with figure 10.Response. the resolution and contrast of the figures were adjusted

Point 15: Fonts in the figures are not consistent.
Response: The resolution and contrast of the figures were adjusted

Point 16: I might be wrong, but It looks like Table 3 is actually a figure. If this is the case, it should be regenerated in the form of a real table.
Response: We regenerate form of the table 3

Point 17:The section "Conclusion" is too long. part of it can be dropped or moved to the Section "Results and Discussions". Instead a few lines can be added to suggest future works.

Response: The section is renamed “ Conclusions and future work”

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed my comments.