A New Method for Mobility Logging Evaluation Based on Flowing Porosity in Shale Oil Reservoirs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript can be considered for publication. However, some issues need to be addressed by authors before acceptance.

1. Abstract is comprehensive. Please add short conclusion at the end of abstract.

2. It is suggested to add relevant figure, photo, maps of field or even suitable diagram to support the introduction.

3. Problem statement need to be highlighted more clearly.

4. It is advised to add a flowchart of methodology to help in better understanding of methodology.

5. The discussion of result is not comprehensive. It lacks in-depth discussion and explanation in a more detailed especially the reason or to answer the question of ‘why does it happen?’. It is important to provide strong discussion rather than that are simply collection and reporting the results. At the moment, the current form of discussion section is too brief.

6. The length of paragraphs which should not be too short or too long.

7. Please increase the number of references that have been published recently (within the last three years).

The quality of English is average. The manuscript can be improved by sending it for proofreading process by native English speakers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled "A new method for mobility logging evaluation based on flowing porosity in shale oil reservoirs" has been investigated in details by Shen et al.,. The topic addressed in the manuscript is potentially interesting and the manuscript contains some practical meanings. However, there are some major concerns which are required to be addressed by the authors for further proceeding:

1.       In the first place, I would encourage the authors to summarize the abstract by reporting the key results. The "Abstract" section can be made much more impressive by highlighting your contributions. The contribution of the study should be explained simply and clearly.

2.       The draft suffers from the poor language. It must be revised by a native speaker.

3.       The readability and presentation of the study should be further improved.

4.       The Introduction section needs a major revision in terms of providing more accurate and informative literature review by more discussion concerning the different aspects of considered study.

5.       The pros and cons of the available approaches and how the proposed method is different comparatively should be clearly discussed in the draft. Also, the motivation and contribution should be stated more clearly.

6.       The authors should clearly emphasize the contribution of the study. Please note that the up-to-date of references will contribute to the up-to-date of your manuscript. There are several out of date and or irrelevant cited work. Accordingly, literature review shall be revised by referring more recent studies.

7.       The importance of the design carried out in this manuscript can be explained better than other important studies published in this field. I recommend the authors to review other recently developed works.

8.         The performance of the proposed method should be better analyzed, commented and visualized in the experimental and analytical approaches.

9.       What makes the proposed method suitable for this unique task? What new development to the proposed method have the authors added (compared to the existing experimental and theoretical approaches)? These points have not been clarified.

10.     All variables should clearly to be specified in the draft accompanied with their units.

11.     "Discussion" section should be edited in a more highlighting, argumentative way. The author should analysis the reason why and how the tested results are achieved.

12.   Some of the Figures are unreadable and illegible, it is strongly recommended that Figures to be redesigned and presented in a high quality format.

13.   The "Conclusions" section requires to be summarized as well as reporting the key obtained results.

The draft suffers from the poor language. It must be revised by a native speaker.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Quite disappointed to see that the authors have not addressed the comments seriously. I would like to request the authors to reflect the comments properly in manuscript.

Need to be proofread by English native speaker

Author Response

The paper has been edited by a native English speaker. Please see the attachment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors correctly revised the draft. It can be accepted in the present form.

Minor edition is required.

Author Response

The paper has been edited by a native English speaker. Please see the attachment.