Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Next Article in Journal
Mapping Paddy Rice Fields by Combining Multi-Temporal Vegetation Index and Synthetic Aperture Radar Remote Sensing Data Using Google Earth Engine Machine Learning Platform
Next Article in Special Issue
An Effective Method for Detecting Clouds in GaoFen-4 Images of Coastal Zones
Previous Article in Journal
Thermography as a Tool to Assess Inter-Cultivar Variability in Garlic Performance along Variations of Soil Water Availability
Previous Article in Special Issue
Convective Initiation Proxies for Nowcasting Precipitation Severity Using the MSG-SEVIRI Rapid Scan
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Cluster Approach to Cloud Cover Classification over South America and Adjacent Oceans Using a k-means/k-means++ Unsupervised Algorithm on GOES IR Imagery

Remote Sens. 2020, 12(18), 2991; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12182991
by Adrián E. Yuchechen 1,*, S. Gabriela Lakkis 2, Agustín Caferri 3, Pablo O. Canziani 1 and Juan Pablo Muszkats 4,5
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Remote Sens. 2020, 12(18), 2991; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12182991
Submission received: 1 June 2020 / Revised: 6 July 2020 / Accepted: 17 July 2020 / Published: 14 September 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing of Clouds)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please, see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

An excellent topic and well-designed research. The manuscript is very well written. The only observation I have is the last paragraph of section (2.2 The k-means/k-means++ clustering algorithm) which states “The regression coefficients were used to associate Tb values with CTHs. Negative CTHs that resulted from this regression were not included in the analysis.” I will appreciate if you could include the reason for not including negative values.

The other observation is the “conclusion section”. It is more like a summary of the research and may need to be rewritten drawing some definitive conclusion (may be about the technique used and its effectiveness).

The last suggestion is to include scale bar and north arrow in figures (4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) as it is usually a cartographic requirement. I believe figure 3 is not used in the manuscript and it may change figure number.

Thanks for a nice research work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is acceptable in the present shape since the authors addressed my requests.

Back to TopTop