- While the language has been improved, there are still some awkward phrases. I suggest the authors have the paper reviewed by a native English speaker.
1) Line 29: "To support the GEC study...". Your study or GEC in general? Maybe you mean "To support GEC research/development/solutions"?
2) Line 53: "Because, obviously, there are usually multiple acceptable references with close meanings for an incorrect sentence, as illustrated by the example in Table 1." This is not a well-formed sentence. Rewrite or attach to the previous one.
3) Line 59: Choose either "the model will be unfairly *penalised*" or "*performance* will be unfairly underestimated".
4) Line 83: "... for detailed illustration". ???
5) Line 189: "To facilitate illustration, our guidelines adopt a two-tier hierarchical error taxonomy..." You said earlier that you adopted the "direct re-rewriting" approach so why does your annotation guidelines provide a taxonomy or errors? Is it just to make sure that all ocurrences of the same types of errors are handled equally by all annotators? Weren't they free to correct the sentences in any way they wanted as you stated in lines 178-180?
6) Line 264: "We attribute this to our strict control of the over-correction phenomenon." What do you mean exactly? The original annotation considered some sentences to be erroneous while your guidelines did not?
7) Line 310: "Since it is usually ..." This is not a well-formed sentence. Rewrite or attach to the previous one.
8) Line 399: "... and only use the erroneous part for training" Do you mean you discard correct sentences? As it stands, it sounds as if you only kept the incorrect sentences without their corrections. You might want to make this clearer.
9) "... which does not need error-coded annotation". This is not exactly so. ERRANT computes P, R and F from M2 files containing span-level annotations. For English, it is able to automatically generate these annotations from parallel text using an alignment and edit extraction algorithm. In the case of Chinese, you did this yourself. So while it is not necessary to manually annotate the error spans, you do need to extract them somehow before ERRANT can compute the measures.
10) Table 5: "For calculating the human performance, each submitted result is considered as a sample if an annotator submits multiple results." I am afraid this does not clearly explain how human performance was computed. Each annotator against the rest? Averaged across all of them? How are multiple corrections from a single annotator handled? If you compared each annotation to the rest but the systems were compared to all the annotations, then I believe human evaluation is an underestimation. This is still not clear.
11) Line 514: "The word-order errors can be identified by heuristic rules following Hinson et al. (2020)." Did you classify the errors in the M2 files before feeding them into ERRANT?
12) Line 544: "... we remove all extra references if a sentence has more than 2 gold-standard references". Do you remove them randomly or sequentially?
13) TYPOS/ERRORS: "them" -> "this approach"? ( line 72), "both formal/informal" -> "both formal and informal" (line 81), "supplement" -> "supply"? ( lines 89, 867), "from total" -> "from *the* total" (line 127), "Finally, we have obtained 7,137 sentences" -> "In the end, we obtained 7,137 sentences" (line 138), "suffers from" -> "poses" (line 155), "illustration" -> "annotation"? ( line 189), "Golden" -> "Gold" (lines 212, 220, 221, 317), "sentence numbers" -> "number of sentences" (Table 3 caption), "numbers (proportion)" -> "number (proportion)" (Table 3 caption), "averaged character numbers" -> "average number of characters" (Table 3 caption), "averaged edit numbers" -> "average number of edits" (Table 3 caption), "averaged reference numbers" -> "average number of references" (Table 3 caption), "in the parenthesis of the..." -> "in parentheses in the..." (Table 3 caption), "previous" -> "original"? ( line 262), "use" (delete, line 270), "in *the* re-annotated" (line 271), "twice of that" -> "twice that" (line 273), "edit number" -> "number of edits" (line 281), "the sentence length" -> "sentence length" (line 282), "numbers" -> "number" (lines 283, 297), "numbers" -> "the number" (line 295), "Same" -> "Identical" (line 298), "calculated" -> "counted" (line 299), "the different" -> "different" (Figure 1 caption), "reference number" -> "number of references" (line 305), "for" -> "to" (line 307), "the descending" -> "descending" (line 326), "sentence numbers" -> "number of sentences" (line 327), "It" -> "This" (line 331), "annotate" -> "annotated" (Figure 2 caption), "limitation" -> "limitations" (line 343), "SOTA" -> "state-of-the-art (SOTA)" (line 353), "these" -> "this" (line 369), "where" -> "on which" (line 393), "hugging face" -> "Hugging Face" (431), "these" -> "this" (line 464), "The" -> "A" (line 466), "reference number" -> "the number of references" (Figure 3 caption), "start" -> "have started" (line 571), "will be" -> "are" (line 863), "false" -> "incorrect"? ( line 865).
- While the language has been improved, there are still some awkward phrases. I suggest the authors have the paper reviewed by a native English speaker.