Research on a Novel Improved Adaptive Variational Mode Decomposition Method in Rotor Fault Diagnosis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
From the point of view of form, when an equation is used during a sentence, it is never aligned with the line.
In equation (2), the penalty factor is \^α and not α'?
In this same equation, why did you add the term ||f(t)-Σuk(t)||2 in the lagragian?
Be careful to have the figure and caption on the same page (e.g. Fig. 4).
Partial conclusions after results would allow you to better highlight your results (e.g. end §3.2, end §4, ...).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper concerns the problem of mode decomposition in rotor fault diagnosis. The authors propose an extensions of the variational mode decomposition algorithm (VMD, by Dragomiretskiy and Zosso, 2014). For the VMD to be successful, some tuning parameters have to be properly set. In various application fields there has been a lot of work done recently to guarantee reasonable settings in given instances. Indeed, the claimed novelty of this work is in yet another way of optimising the VMD in the given context.
This paper suffers greatly from the lack of polish in the presentation, including both the language and use of illustrations (figures and captions). I cannot escape the feeling that the authors have submitted this work somewhat prematurely. I suggest that the authors pay attention not only to formal correctness of the figures and tables but also use the captions to indicate the salient features therein.
Having said that, the paper does have its merits. The arguments are developed properly and I was particularly impressed by the inclusion of experimental validation which is what everyone wants but is often very difficult to accomplish.
Here are some of the issues that in my opinion the authors should consider in relation to the current paper:
My main concern is whether the additional computational cost actually is worth it? Naturally, the more extensive preparation stage leads to higher costs. I would like the authors to quantify the higher costs more precisely both in time and other resources (memory) if applicable.
Even though the quantitative error indicators of Section 5.5 support the argument that the proposed method is indeed an improvement over the references, these numbers should be combined with the qualitative ones. At the moment it is not possible to judge whether the change in the second decimal is meaningful in practice.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Page 5, line 172: It would be convenient to justify the threshold value used with some reference.
Page 5, lines 181-202 refer to a logic process that would be better illustrated by a logic diagram.
Page 10, lines 277-305 refer to a logic process that would be better illustrated by a logic diagram.
Page 10, line 278: It would be convenient to justify the selection of m=30 and T=10 with some reference.
Page 11, line 295: The notation of r1 and r2 with subindices should be improved.
Page 14, lines 336, 338, 340, 343: Its necessary to change Sep1, Sep2, Sep3 and Sep4 to Step1, Step2, Step2, and Step4.
Page 15, lines 357, 358, 359: The notation of the subindices of x1, x2, x3, and x4 must be modified in the same format as equation 18.
Page 20, line 427: The notation of the subindices of q1, q2, and q3 must be modified in the same format as equation 19.
Page 31, lines 611-612: The notation of the subindices of NC, Cik, Cjk, xk, and rk must be modified in the same format as equation 21.
Page 31, lines 631, and 633: It would be advisable to add in Table 2 and Table 3 the percentage differences of the IAVMD method with respect to the others (OVMD, LMD, EMD, WT).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed all my scientific issues. The quality of the presentation has increased considerably and thus makes for easier reading.
However, there are still issues with the use of English. In fact, the very first sentence in the introduction "As we known, ..." has a grammatical error.
This paper requires still one round of editing from this point of view.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
