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.
Congratulations, the reviewers are satisfied with the revised version of the manuscript and have recommended the acceptance decision.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
the required change were done
the required change were done
the required change were done
the paper can be accepted
Authors have addressed all the concerns. The paper can be accepted in its current state.
NA
NA
NA
Based on the reviewers’ comments, you may resubmit the revised manuscript for further consideration. Please consider the reviewers’ comments carefully and submit a list of responses to the comments along with the revised manuscript.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
The etitled paper "Advanced convolutional neural network modeling for fuel cell system optimization and efficiency in methane, methanol, and diesel reforming" developped an new model using a tuned ML algorithm that can be used to optimse methane, methanol and diesed reforming . In this work authors have discribed their proposed framework. The proposed method is new. The obtained results are significative and are very important. However, we recommand these changes:
* Author should provide detailed flow-chart diagram of proposed methodology.
* then, provide more details of devised method, so that other authors can easily replicate produced outcomes and methodology.
* The quality of all figures should be enhanced
* More details regarding utilized dataset should be provided (to test and train the modele)
* More recent references must be added (especially the usage of deep learning in the energy area)
no comment
good but the figure should be detailled
The main goal of this paper is to develop a general framework for accurate estimation of hydrogen and carbon monoxide content in the syngas produced from methanol, methane, and diesel. However some of the minor changes are required.
Incomplete sentence Structure
Abstract- This study presents a powerful convolutional neural network (CNN) model to predict hydrogen yield and carbon monoxide vol.% for the reformation of methane, methanol, and diesel.
Other than transportation, what are the significant challenges to the wide implementation of hydrogen in different sectors - mention those.
Contribution
Ambiguity in sentence - In addition, the CNN model is used to estimate methane conversion for methane reforming, rewrite this sentence.
Predicted output parameters for methane, methanol and diesel reforming processes are compared with their actual values in the CNN model. How could this be a contribution please rewrite?
Also, contribution point 3 didn’t clearly depicts the novelty of the work. In fact, it explains the process. Kindly re-write all the contributions. There are total six contribution points however none of the point clearly identify the actual contribution and novelty of work. Better to explain clearly in 3-4 points
The findings have been impacted by the preprocessing methods used on the data before feeding it into the CNN model. The capacity of the suggested model to learn from and generalize from the data is improved by using appropriate data preparation techniques, such as feature
Line 225, explain preprocesing steps briefly
Dataset parameters should be discussed
Line 356 - It has been randomly selected these numbers from the dataset so that the accuracy of the results is not distorted - justify how randomly selection couldn’t effect the dataset accuracy scaling and normalization.
no comments
no comments
In the study titled "Advanced convolutional neural network modelling for fuel cell system optimization and efficiency in methane, methanol, and diesel reforming", a convolutional neural network (CNN) model is developed to predict the hydrogen yield and carbon monoxide volume for the reformation of methane, methanol, and diesel. 3D-CNN and 2D-CNN are used together in the developed model. The data used in the study is not in image or dcom format. The paper contains original content with interesting results. However, it needs to be revised for quality.
- Researchers should explain how they use 3D-CNN and 2D-CNN models.
- The researchers stated in the abstract section that the proposed model is more successful than similar CNN architectures in the literature. How was this conclusion reached?
- Additionally, the importance of the study and its contributions to the literature should be highlighted in the abstract section.
- A detailed literature review is presented in the introduction section. The differences and successful aspects of the study from these studies need to be examined.
- The organization of the paper presented at the end of the Introduction section should not be given by presenting only the headings. This paragraph should be written more comprehensively so that the reader can get an idea.
- In line 222, there is an expression like “In the designed CNN model, both 3D-CNN and 2D-CNN models are combined to extract features from the input data”. It should be clarified how the same input data are received in both 2D and 3D formats.
- Figure 1 should also explain how to switch from 3D-CNN to 2D-CNN.
- The experimental result section is a repetition of the information given in the material and method section about the proposed model. This information should be removed to avoid repetition.
- The values presented in Table 2 are written in detail between lines 457 and 477. These values are presented in Table 2. I think there is no need for such a detailed paragraph. The same goes for other tables and paragraphs.
- A summary of the results obtained in the study should also be added to the items added at the end of the application section.
- The conclusion paragraph is written like application results. The relevant section should be updated.
- The authors fail to demonstrate clarifying the study’s limitations that allow the readers to better understand under which conditions the results should be interpreted. Practical advantages and research limitations should be indicated.
- Conduction of the simulations is not clearly described. Running environment including software should be provided.
- The equations should be used with correct citations. They seem as if they are proposed and used for the first time in this paper.
- Some mathematical notations are not rigorous enough to correctly understand the content of the paper.
Authors are requested to review all definitions of variables and to further clarify these equations. Definitions of all variables and their intervals should be provided.
- Some paragraphs are too long. They should be divided into paragraphs for readability.
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.