Detection and Classification of Tomato Crop Disease Using Convolutional Neural Network
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Detection and Classification of Tomato Crop Disease Using Convolutional Neural Network
Gnanavel Sakkarvarthi, Godfrey Winster Sathianesan, Vetri Selvan murugan, Avulapalli Jayaram Reddy, Prabhu Jayagopal, and Mahmoud Elsisi
electronics-1987326
The proposed paper is focused on a deep learning approach for detection and classification of possible tomato crop disease. The authors propose an ad-hoc architecture and compare the results with state of the art neural networks such as VGG 19 and ResNet 152.
Due to the criticisms listed below, I recommend a rejection:
· Several sentences are unclear or meaningless, see introduction, lines 41-43, 55-57, 60-62 and 65, for examples.
· The State of the art section is very poor, I recommend the author to consider reviews about deep learning in clinical applications, some examples are listed below:
R. Zemouri, N. Zerhouni, and D. Racoceanu, “Deep learning in the biomedical applications: Recent and future status,” Applied Sciences, vol. 9, no. 8, 2019.
G. Litjens, T. Kooi, B. E. Bejnordi, A. A. Adiyoso Setio, F. Ciompi, M. Ghafoorian, J. A.W.M. van der Laak, B. van Ginneken, and C. I. S´anchez, “A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis,” Medical Image Analysis, vol. 42, pp. 60–88, 2017.
· Most of the figures and graphs do not add any important information about the proposed framework (Figs. 3,4 and 6, for example).
· Most of the figures present results of both training and validation tests. There is no need of include training losses and accuracies, typically just performances of test set are sufficient.
· The novelty of the work seems to be very weak. Neither new technique or application is proposed, therefore, in my opinion, this study is barely considerable for a conference. My advice is to reduce the length of the paper removing all the negligible figures and submit this work to an appropriate conference.
Additional minor comments:
· Please rearrange the position of tables and figures in order to increase the readability of the paper.
· The paper requires a complete revision to be presented at an English conference or published in an English journal. It is recommended that the authors find a local professional or academic who shares their first language to assist them.
Author Response
Query Response
Title: Detection and Classification of Tomato Crop Disease Using Convolutional Neural Network
Reviewer 1 comments
S.No |
Query |
Response |
1 |
· Please rearrange the position of tables and figures in order to increase the readability of the paper. |
Rearranged the position of tables and figures. |
2 |
· Several sentences are unclear or meaningless, see introduction, lines 41-43, 55-57, 60-62 and 65, for examples. |
We have changed the meaningful sentence |
Reviewer 2 Report
See comments reported in the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Query Response
Title: Detection and Classification of Tomato Crop Disease Using Convolutional Neural Network
Reviewer 2 comments
S.No |
Query |
Response |
1 |
Insert correct punctuation in the text |
Corrected |
2 |
Use carefully capital and small letters |
Corrected |
3 |
Detach some words that are attached |
Incorporated |
4 |
Give a space after the period at the end of each sentence in the text: in many cases the period is attached to the first letter of the following sentence |
Corrected |
5 |
Use correct English grammar and form: a native English speaker should read all the text |
Updated correct English grammar |
6 |
Paragraphs should be rewritten, formatting them properly |
Formatted properly |
7 |
Row 213 reports the term <<table…”>>: what table? |
Figure 1 updated |
8 |
Row 238 reports: << The size of the max pooling filter is 2X2. With strides 2. As shown in table 1. >>:what does this mean? |
Meaning of 2 updated. |
9 |
Row 244 reports: << The total number of extracted parameters are 1060138 >>: I think is best "is", not "are" |
Is updated |
10 |
Row 294 reports: << The result shown in figÂ… >>: what figure? |
Figure number included. |
11 |
Row 291 reports: << The model obtained the testing accuracy and loss are 0.4944 and 1.0017 respectively >>: clarify the meaning of this sentence |
Clarified the meaning of the sentence |
12 |
In the text, the accurate definition of terms "accuracy" and "loss" is missing |
Included |
13 |
In Table 2, the value <<19s 289ms>> should be written as 19,289 s or 19,289 ms, and so on |
Updated as per reviewer suggestion |
14 |
1. Emre ozbIlge,Mehtap Köse Ulukok,onsen Toygar, And Ebru OzbIlge," Tomato Disease Recognition Using a Compact Convolutional Neural Network",IEEE Access, 2022, 10, pp. 77213-77224 2. Piyush Juyal and Sachin Sharma, "Detecting the Infectious area along with Disease using Deep Learning in tomato Plant Leaves ",Proc. of 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Sustainable Systems (ICISS), 2020, doi: 10.1109/ICISS49785.2020.9316108
3. Prajwala TM, Alla Pranathi, Kandiraju Sai Ashritha, Nagaratna B. Chittaragi*, Shashidhar G. Koolagudi “Tomato Leaf Disease Detection using Convolutional Neural Networks”, in: Proc. of Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applications Conference (ASYU), 2020, pp. 1-5,doi: 10.1109/ASYU50717.2020.9259832
|
These three paper refer and included in reference section. |
15 |
Supplemented the conclusions with more experimental information |
Conclusion updated . |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is good, however: 1. What's new? 2. Very few references that don't. Which makes it impossible to know the real state of the art of the subject.
Author Response
Query Response
Title: Detection and Classification of Tomato Crop Disease Using Convolutional Neural Network
Reviewer 3 comments
The article is good, however: 1. What's new?
- Very few references that don't.
S.No |
Query |
Response |
1 |
What's new? |
10 different diseases are detected and CNN model is used to identify the diseases |
2 |
Very few references that don't. |
Updated |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Detection and Classification of Tomato Crop Disease Using Convolutional Neural Network
Gnanavel Sakkarvarthi, Godfrey Winster Sathianesan, Vetri Selvan murugan, Avulapalli Jayaram Reddy, Prabhu Jayagopal, and Mahmoud Elsisi
electronics-1987326, round 2
Most of the criticism listed in the first round revision have not been addressed, therefore I remain of the same opinion. Due to criticism (mainly related to the novelty of the approach) I recommend a rejection. However, you can found my comments below:
· The novelty of the work seems to be very weak. Neither new technique or application is proposed, therefore, in my opinion, this study is barely considerable for a conference. My advice is to reduce the length of the paper removing all the negligible figures and submit this work to an appropriate conference.
· Most of the figures and graphs do not add any important information about the proposed framework (Figs. 3,4 and 6, for example).
· Most of the figures present results of both training and validation tests. There is no need of include training losses and accuracies, typically just performances of test set are sufficient.
Additional minor comments:
· Please rearrange the position of tables and figures in order to increase the readability of the paper (typically figures and tables are placed in the top part of a page).
· The paper requires a complete revision to be presented at an English conference or published in an English journal. It is recommended that the authors find a local professional or academic who shares their first language to assist them.
· Be careful about figures resolutions. For example, in Fig. 4 the bottom graph present different resolution compared to the upper two, the same occurs for Figs. 5(a) and 5(b).
Author Response
Query Response
Title: Detection and Classification of Tomato Crop Disease Using Convolutional Neural Network
Reviewer 1 comments
round 1 |
|||
S.No |
Query |
Response |
|
|
Several sentences are unclear or meaningless, see introduction, lines 41-43, 55-57, 60-62 and 65, for examples. |
Lines 41-43, 55-57, 60-62 and 65 have been removed from the article as per reviewer commands and it’s not relevant to this work |
|
2 |
The State of the art section is very poor, I recommend the author to consider reviews about deep learning in clinical applications, some examples are listed below: |
We added author suggested article. |
|
3 |
R. Zemouri, N. Zerhouni, and D. Racoceanu, “Deep learning in the biomedical applications: Recent and future status,” Applied Sciences, vol. 9, no. 8, 2019.
|
Referred this article and added. |
|
4 |
28. G. Litjens, T. Kooi, B. E. Bejnordi, A. A. Adiyoso Setio, F. Ciompi, M. Ghafoorian, J. A.W.M. van der Laak, B. van Ginneken, and C. I. S´anchez, “A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis,” Medical Image Analysis, vol. 42, pp. 60–88, 2017.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2017.07.005 |
Referred this article and added. |
|
5 |
Most of the figures and graphs do not add any important information about the proposed framework (Figs. 3,4 and 6, for example). |
Figure 3 show the Confusion matrix of validation and training in different epochs, figure 4 shown the performance of CNN model in graphical representation and Figure 6. Graphical representation of transfer learning techniques. This figure helps to understand different epochs, CNN performance and transfer learning techniques. |
|
6 |
Most of the figures present results of both training and validation tests. There is no need of include training losses and accuracies, typically just performances of test set are sufficient. |
For detailed explanation, information on training and losses is included |
|
7 |
· Please rearrange the position of tables and figures in order to increase the readability of the paper. |
Rearranged the position of tables and figures appropriate places |
|
8 |
· The paper requires a complete revision to be presented at an English conference or published in an English journal. It is recommended that the authors find a local professional or academic who shares their first language to assist them.
|
We have revised the English version |
|
round 2 |
|||
S.No |
Query |
Response |
|
1 |
Most of the criticism listed in the first round revision have not been addressed, therefore I remain of the same opinion |
Above all the first round comments revised.
|
|
2 |
· Most of the figures and graphs do not add any important information about the proposed framework (Figs. 3,4 and 6, for example).
|
Figure 3 show the Confusion matrix of validation and training in different epochs, figure 4 shown the performance of CNN model in graphical representation and Figure 6. Graphical representation of transfer learning techniques. This figure helps to understand different epochs, CNN performance and transfer learning techniques. |
|
|
· Most of the figures present results of both training and validation tests. There is no need of include training losses and accuracies, typically just performances of test set are sufficient. |
For detailed explanation, information on training and losses is included |
|
|
Please rearrange the position of tables and figures in order to increase the readability of the paper (typically figures and tables are placed in the top part of a page). |
Rearranged the position of tables and figures appropriate places |
|
|
· Be careful about figures resolutions. For example, in Fig. 4 the bottom graph present different resolution compared to the upper two, the same occurs for Figs. 5(a) and 5(b). |
Resolution is improved |
|
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Detection and Classification of Tomato Crop Disease Using Convolutional Neural Network
Gnanavel Sakkarvarthi, Godfrey Winster Sathianesan, Vetri Selvan murugan, Avulapalli Jayaram Reddy, Prabhu Jayagopal, and Mahmoud Elsisi
electronics-1987326, round 3
Most of my previous comments have been addressed. For what concerns me, the novelty of the paper remains weak, but the quality of the paper has improved by far. Therefore, the manuscript can be accepted.