Application of Iterative Virtual Events Internal Multiple Suppression Technique: A Case of Southwest Depression Area of Tarim, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This work is interesting, but some points should be improved. I strongly recommend a revision of the text. Maybe you should consider a professional service to improve the text and the use of the English language. Besides that, the citations in the body of the text are not in the journal format. For instructions to the Authors see the page https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci/instructions.
I also encourage a revision of the description of the method, Section 3 is very confusing.
Find attached some additional suggestions.
Keep the good work!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript applsci-2307242 entitled “Application of Iterative Virtual Events Internal Multiple Suppression Technique: A Case of Southwest Depression Area of Tarim, China”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. We use the track changes mode in MS Word for the revised manuscript. Revised and added content are marked in red color in the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to your comments are as following:
Point 1: Page 1, line(s) 18: I did not understand the meaning of “transverse direction” in this phrase.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comment. This suggestion provided us with great help in revising our manuscript. We have changed “transverse direction” to “horizontal direction”.
Point 2: Page 1, line(s) 30: At the end of the introduction add a paragraph explaining the organization of the paper.
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comment. We have added a paragraph explaining the organization of the paper, please refer to p.3.
Point 3:Page 1, line(s) 44: Format of citation is wrong. Many other citations are in the same wrong format. For instructions to the Authors, please, visit the page https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci/instructions.
Response 3: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised the format of citation. We hope that would address your concerns.
Point 4: Page 2, line(s) 58: I did not understand this phrase.
Response 4: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have rewritten and reorganized parts of the manuscript in order to make it clear and we have invited a professional language teacher to make the necessary modifications.
Point 5: Page 3, line(s) 100: Which method of multiple suppression in the data domain?
Response 5: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comment. The Marchenko method is divided into focusing method and data domain method. So the method of multiple suppression in the data domain is Marchenko internal multiple suppression method. We hope that would address your concerns.
Point 6: Page 4, line(s) 169: The Radon transform is used to suppress what in the prestack data? This phrase is not clear.
Response 6: Thanks for your careful review towards our original manuscript. The Radon transform is used to suppress internal multiple in the prestack data. We have added parts of the manuscript in order to make it clear and have double checked similar problem more carefully in our revised manuscript.
Point 7: Page 4, line(s) 173-174: Please, improve this phrase. It is difficult to understand.
Response 7: Thank you for valuable and thoughtful comments. We have rewritten and reorganized parts of the manuscript in order to make it clear.
Point 8: Page 5, line(s) 177-178: Please, include a reference to the iterative method to suppress internal multiples.
Response 8: Thank you for your valuable comment. We added two references in our revised manuscript.
Point 9: Page 5, line(s) 181: If possible, please, add a flowchart explaining the main steps in your method to the removal of the multiples.
Response 9: Thank you for your valuable comment. We added more descriptive languages to make process flow clear.
Point 10: Page 6, line(s) 216-217: What does it mean to transpose a wavefield in equation 8? Please, explain in the text.
Response 10: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have explained this question, T represents matrix transpose.
Point 11: Page 10, line(s) 280: In which previous article?
Response 11: Thank you for your valuable comment. We added “(Figure 2 and Figure 3)” to explain the problem.
Point 12: Page 11, line(s) 298: Please, include a discussion about the difficulties of applying this method. It seems that this method requires the selection of primary events. I think that in some cases it is difficult to define a primary event.
Response 12: Thank you for your valuable comment. We added the method to select primary events in the manuscript, please refer to p.3.
Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments and revisions.
Best Regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract should contain all parts of the Ms, which should present the scientific issues that corresponds to the introduction.
The current introduction is a bit long and lack of logic. Make clear mind of the scientific issues. Condense the introduction and stress the scientific issues with the different aspects.
Add a geological map the Study Region.
Improve the quality of some images.
The conclusion should only contain highlights.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript applsci-2307242 entitled “Application of Iterative Virtual Events Internal Multiple Suppression Technique: A Case of Southwest Depression Area of Tarim, China”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. We use the track changes mode in MS Word for the revised manuscript. Revised and added content are marked in red color in the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to your comments are as following:
Point 1: Abstract should contain all parts of the Ms, which should present the scientific issues that corresponds to the introduction.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comment. We have rewritten parts of the abstract in order to make it clear.
Point 2: The current introduction is a bit long and lack of logic. Make clear mind of the scientific issues. Condense the introduction and stress the scientific issues with the different aspects.
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised the introduction section.
Point 3: Add a geological map the Study Region.
Response 3: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comment. But regarding confidentiality issues, we apologize that we are currently unable to provide a geological map the Study Region.
Point 4: Improve the quality of some images.
Response 4: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comment. We We have replaced all the figures. Please refer to the manuscript.
Point 5: The conclusion should only contain highlights.
Response 5: Thank you for your valuable comment. This suggestion provided us with great help in revising our manuscript. We have modified the conclusion. Please refer to p.12 and p.13.
Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments and revisions.
Best Regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The text improved considerably, but the description of the method is still poor. Section 3 should be improved.
Please, include in the beginning of section 3 a reference to a paper that is related to your method. Besides that, the first phrase in the beginning of section 3 is very difficult to understand. You could also try to improve the explanation of the construction of the virtual event.
Please, divide Figure 4 in parts (a) and (b). What does the red star mean in Figure 4?
The reference to Berkhout et al. before equation 4 is in the wrong reference format.
Please, include a detailed explanation of equation 4. How equation 3 becomes equation 4?
I recommend a minor revision.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript applsci-2307242 entitled “Application of Iterative Virtual Events Internal Multiple Suppression Technique: A Case of Southwest Depression Area of Tarim, China”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. We use the track changes mode in MS Word for the revised manuscript. Revised and added content are marked in blue color in the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to your comments are as following:
Point 1: Please, include in the beginning of section 3 a reference to a paper that is related to your method. Besides that, the first phrase in the beginning of section 3 is very difficult to understand. You could also try to improve the explanation of the construction of the virtual event.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comment. This suggestion provided us with great help in revising our manuscript. We are sorry for not addressing this issue effectively in the last revised manuscript. In this version, we have added two references that is related to our method ([23, 24]). We have revised the related sentences that difficult to understand and explained the construction of the virtual event, please refer to p.5. We hope that would address your concerns.
Point 2: Please, divide Figure 4 in parts (a) and (b). What does the red star mean in Figure 4?.
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comment. We have divided Figure 4 in parts (a) and (b), and explained that the red star mean convolution operation, please refer to p.6.
Point 3: The reference to Berkhout et al. before equation 4 is in the wrong reference format.
Response 3: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised the reference format.
Point 4: Please, include a detailed explanation of equation 4. How equation 3 becomes equation 4?
Response 4: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have added relevant references ([25, 26]) and formulas（（4）,（5）） to explain this problem, please refer to p.7.
Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments and revisions.
Best Regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
