Satellite Navigation Message Authentication in GNSS: Research on Message Scheduler for SBAS L1

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There is only one table in the "4.1. Simulation Configuration" section of the study. This part must be written in chapter structure.

In the "4. Simulation Experiment" chapter, not only the experiment but also theoretical information is given. The theoretical information in this part should be moved to the previous section(s). Also, this part is written in a very complex way. It seems that the studies are quite long and complex. It would be appropriate to reconsider.

Chapter "Conclusion" is written more like a discussion than a conclusion. Much of the information provided here can be moved to the previous chapter. It would be appropriate to talk about more general results here.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The Abstract should be more application-oriented.

2. The author should add more recent papers in the introduction to help readers better grasp the relevant research trends. These works should draw the authors’ attention: https://doi.org/10.3390/e25081177

3. Authors should explain one or two applications of this work explicitly in the text of the manuscript and also in the conclusion section so that readers can get it easily.

4. The authors are requested to give a comparison study of the proposed work with the published ones and should include some advantages.

5.  Finally, I recommend that the paper should be revised taking care of the above comments.

Please check the grammar and phrases of the manuscAript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper investigation is well-conducted, and the contribution is acceptable. I believe it can be considered for publication after some minor revisions. Below are my comments:

1. The length of the article is excessive and might bore the audience. Please summarize it.

2. Could you provide further explanation about Figure 10?

3. The quality of Figure 11 is poor.

4. The conclusion is overly long. Please summarize it.

5. Grammatical errors need to be corrected, and improvements should be made in the English language used.

Grammatical errors need to be corrected, and improvements should be made in the English language used.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made the corrections indicated by us. However, why was the author named Na Xu included in the study? Considering that no changes were made in the study other than the suggested issues, adding an unjustified author is not an appropriate approach.

Reviewer 2 Report

No further comments. The manuscript can be accepted in its present form.