Prediction of Physical and Mechanical Properties of Heat-Treated Wood Based on the Improved Beluga Whale Optimisation Back Propagation (IBWO-BP) Neural Network

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review

Prediction of Physical and Mechanical Properties of Heat-Treated Woods Based on the IBWO-BP Neural Network

 

The results of this research are significant, and all conclusions are justified and supported by the results.

The paper presents original research work and provides an advance in current knowledge.

The main subject of the paper was to predict the swelling and shrinkage ratio of air-dry wood, modulus of elasticity and bending strength of heat-treated wood using the improved Beluga Whale Optimization – back propagation neural network (IBWO-BP) model.

The authors have conducted a very extensive and interesting study and explained the importance of his research. The methodology, and the results are well explained.

English language and style require minor editing.

The paper is acceptable for publishing in journal Forests after minor corrections.

 

Line 47. What is dimensional stability? One of the definitions is “the ability of a material to resist changes in its shape or size when subjected to various environmental conditions.” How can wood be dimensionally more stable ("greater") in a tangential direction than in a radial direction?

Line 61, 62, 63, 64. Redundant; You already wrote this in the text above.

Line 105 (and in the headline). In the wood technology dictionary, the word “woods” refers to the trees in the forest, and wood is a product of "woods". So, you should write properties of "wood",  or wood properties. There is no plural in this meaning of wood.

Line 122-164. I am aware that BWO is established based on whale observation. But what does this entire explanation have to do with wood and its properties? Explain this based on wood properties or shorten the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language and style require minor editing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

Lines 12-17 – reformulate to be neutral and in agreement with the title of the paper.

Lines 18-21 require reformulation and few data that justify the affirmation

Line 36 – insert values to justify the affirmation

Line 43 - specify the species of wood taken into study

Line 46 -the term four wood must be replaced with “four wood species”

Line 50 – reformulate the sentence, the text is neglectful

Line57 -  precise values for MOE

For all introduction, specify, in affirmation with connection to references, the species of wood studied

Line 65 -  affirmation without value if is not commented

Lines 86-89 -  “better results” consist in??

Line 93 -  explain what do you mean by “local optimum”

Lines 107 – 109 -  affirmation without sustaining

All introduction is without scientific content.

Relation (1) requires reference

Lines 122-132 -  identic with reference [26]

Subchapter 2.1 must be eliminated

Please use much attention at similitudes.

See text highlighted in green. The part of chapter 2 is identic with Zhong, C., Li, G., & Meng, Z. (2022). Beluga whale optimization: A novel nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm. Knowledge-Based Systems, 251, 109215.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction provides a comprehensive overview of the use of wood, the challenges posed by moisture, and the potential of heat treatment to address these issues.

1. The introduction could benefit from improved clarity and organization. It jumps between discussing the history of heat treatment, its effects on wood properties, the limitations of heat-treated wood, and the proposal of an improved optimization technique without clear transitions.

2.  

3. There is some redundancy and repetition in the discussion of the effects of heat treatment on wood properties. For example, the paragraph beginning with "High temperature heat treatment improves the dimensional stability of wood" repeats information already discussed earlier in the introduction.

4. Some statements could be clarified to improve understanding. For instance, the sentence "The improved dimensional stability of heat-treated wood depends on the species" could be expanded to explain why different wood species exhibit varied responses to heat treatment.

5. The transition to discussing the proposed approach of using improved beluga whale optimization (IBWO) could be smoother. It feels somewhat abrupt and disconnected from the preceding discussion.

6. While the proposed approach is introduced, more justification could be provided for why the IBWO optimization technique is chosen over others and how it addresses specific limitations of existing methods.

7. The introduction could benefit from a clearer conclusion summarizing the key points discussed and outlining the purpose of the paper more explicitly.While the section discusses the IBWO algorithm in detail, it lacks a comparative analysis with other optimization algorithms commonly used in similar applications. A comparison with algorithms like genetic algorithms (GA), particle swarm optimization (PSO), or differential evolution (DE) would provide valuable insights into the performance of IBWO in relation to existing methods.he section briefly mentions the parameter settings for both the IBWO algorithm and the BP neural network without providing a detailed justification or sensitivity analysis. A more thorough discussion on how these parameters were chosen and their impact on the model's performance would enhance the clarity and reproducibility of the study.Provide a more detailed explanation of the rationale behind the chosen parameter settings for both the IBWO algorithm and the BP neural network. Discuss any sensitivity analysis conducted to justify the selected values.while the study outlines potential future directions for research, such as integrating concepts from other optimization algorithms and leveraging deep learning techniques, it does not provide specific details or hypotheses about how these approaches could address the weaknesses or limitations of the IBWO-BP model.The manuscript demonstrates high merit due to its originality, significance, and scientific rigor. While there are areas for improvement in terms of presentation and clarity, the research makes a valuable contribution to both the academic literature and practical applications in wood science. With some revisions to address the identified weaknesses, the manuscript has the potential to become a highly impactful contribution to the field.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1.  

2. Some sentences are quite long and complex, which could make them difficult for readers to follow. Breaking down these sentences into shorter, more concise ones would improve clarity.

3. While technical terms are necessary in a scientific manuscript, it's important to ensure that they are used appropriately and defined or explained when first introduced. This helps readers who may not be familiar with the terminology to understand the text more easily.

4. Transition Words: Adding more transition words and phrases can help improve the flow of the text and guide readers through the logical progression of ideas.

5. Ensuring consistency in terminology, formatting, and style throughout the manuscript is important for clarity and professionalism.

6. There are a few minor grammatical errors and typos present in the text. Proofread the manuscript carefully to correct these errors would enhance its overall quality.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

I have concluded my evaluation of your manuscript. It deals with a relevant subject and is well presented and written. I made some observations in the attached text. I ask for your attention.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A rather interesting experimental paper that highlights modern algorithms for predicting the behaviour of materials after a specific treatment. The authors adapt the software, the BWO-BP Neural Network algorithm, to analyse and predict the physico-mechanical characteristics of thermo-modified wood. BWO algorithms are used to investigate many industrial problems. However, depending on the issues to be analysed, they can fall into local minima or predict the behaviour of a given process less accurately in the original version. In this context, the authors proposed their method/improved BWO-BP model. The procedure for developing the algorithm seems correct and natural for the case under analysis. However, the input data must be clarified to teach the algorithm. Only the observed factors are apparent. Admittedly, everything is correct in Fig. 6, but to teach the algorithm based on 53 samples to determine the parameters well for 22 samples, the number and variability of the factors must be small or so selected that the effect is unambiguous. The authors refer to an extensive literature. Perhaps the missing information should be searched there.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is focused on investigation and prediction of physical and mechanical properties of heat-treated woods based on the IBWO-BP neural network. In this respect, it is within the scope of the Forest Journal.In general, the manuscript is well-written, structured and informative, but still needs some improvements before acceptance for publication in the Journal. Please, see below my comments on your work:

In general, the title (lines 2-3), the abstract (lines 8 to 25) and the keywords (lines 26-27) correspond to the title, aims and objectives of the manuscript. The abstract is well-written and informative, and contains the main findings of the article.

Line 3: please provide the full term, i.e., improved Beluga Whale Optimization, followed by the respective abbreviation.

Line 20: please use the standard abbreviation for bending strength, i.e., MOR, instead of BS.

Line 21: “…the BP, GA-BP, PSO-BP, WOA-BP, DBO-BP and BWO-BP models…”: please provide the full terms followed by the respective abbreviations.

Lines 39-41: besides improved dimensional stability, there are also some other significant advantages of heat-treated wood, please add a short information, supported by relevant references.

Lines 48-49: please use Italic for the tree species. (Pinus radiata).

Line 56: the same comment as above, please revise to Eucalyptus regnans.

Lines 57-59: “Esteves et al.[10] also indicated that the BS reduced more relative to MOE, but the MOE decreased slightly, too.” The sentence is not clear, please revise/rephrase. Please check these relevant papers on the effect of heat treatment on mechanical properties:

https://doi.org/10.1080/17480272.2023.2212253

DOI: 10.1007/s00107-013-0753-9

DOI: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2013.05.026

Lines 107-109: “Results indicate that our proposed model outperforms others in terms of accuracy, robustness, and convergence speed, suggesting its potential as a reliable tool for predicting the physical and mechanical properties of heat-treated woods”: I believe this part belongs to the Conclusions of the manuscript, not here.

Overall, the Introduction part is well written and informative, and provides relevant information and references on the research topic. However, it should be further elaborated based on the comments above.

Line 270: is this your original figure or it has been taken from another paper? If so, please provide the relevant reference.

Lines 304-305: please provide the botanical names of the tree species used in Italic.

Line 305: the botanical name of white poplar is wrong, it should be Populus tomentosa please revise.

Line 308: please provide relevant information on the equipment used (company producer, city, country).

Line 310: please justify the selected heat treatment temperatures and times.

Line 359: I believe Results and Discussion should be a separate section of the manuscript, please revise.

The results are not properly discussed with relevant research works in the field.

The Conclusion part (lines 440-472) reflects the main findings of the manuscript. In addition to the potential of future studies, I would recommend adding also the practical application of your results for the wood-based industries.

 

The References cited are appropriate to the topic of the manuscript. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language and style used are required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 32 precise what are the physical restrictions

Line 124 – before this line insert the explanation form the answer 11 regarding GA and PSO to explain the role of BWO

Line 285 -  explain the choice of a single out-put for NN

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text is well-written, informative, and suitable for readers interested in wood modification techniques and their applications. It provides valuable insights into the complexities of heat treatment and its implications for wood properties, while also highlighting the importance of ongoing research and innovation in the field.The authors included all my suggestions in the revised version of the paper. I recommend the manuscript for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A general check should be implemented for syntactical and type errors in the whole text.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable comments mentioned in Round 1 to make our research more scientific.

In round 2, we've done a general check for syntax and type errors throughout the text, and thank you very much for your warm reminder.

Thank you for your recognition of our work.

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my previous comments/remarks in the revised version of the manuscript. I believe it can be accepted for publication in the current form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language and style used have been improved with only some minor issues detected. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking time to review our manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable comments mentioned in Round 1 to make our research more scientific.

Some minor issues in the English language of the manuscript have been briefly modified in this revision. We also think that our English language and style need to be improved to facilitate publication and readers' reading.

Thank you for your recognition of our work.