Next Article in Journal
Fabricating a Three-Dimensional Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering Substrate Using Hydrogel-Loaded Freeze-Induced Silver Nanoparticle Aggregates for the Highly Sensitive Detection of Organic Pollutants in Seawater
Next Article in Special Issue
Enhancing Three-Dimensional Reconstruction Through Intelligent Colormap Selection
Previous Article in Journal
Underwater Target Recognition Method Based on Singular Spectrum Analysis and Channel Attention Convolutional Neural Network
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

CASF-Net: Underwater Image Enhancement with Color Correction and Spatial Fusion

Sensors 2025, 25(8), 2574; https://doi.org/10.3390/s25082574
by Kai Chen 1, Zhenhao Li 1, Fanting Zhou 1 and Zhibin Yu 1,2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sensors 2025, 25(8), 2574; https://doi.org/10.3390/s25082574
Submission received: 17 February 2025 / Revised: 28 March 2025 / Accepted: 15 April 2025 / Published: 18 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Underwater Vision Sensing System: 2nd Edition)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is very interesting and a good read. I would suggest to include the items below to further improve the quality. It should not been an issue to do so as the paper is rather short.

  • The content of line 45 to 54 is repeated in line 58 to 66. The repeated elements should be removed. The use of dot points is preferable for readability reasons.
  • Some repeat of "underwater image enhancement" even that UHI has been introduced previously (e.g. in line 96)
  • Text in figures 1b and 3 is too small.
  • In the experiment section, it is suggest to create a table with all the other UIE used, clearly stating their name, reference paper and a few words about the methods used.
  • The evaluation metrics must be explained in more detail. How are they calculated? Why is it relevant?
  • For the evaluation, is it possible to use some "true" reference comparison. Eg is it possible to take images of various structures in-air to compare the results to the in-air picture.
  • The method of Adams (https://isprs-annals.copernicus.org/articles/X-4-2024/7/2024/isprs-annals-X-4-2024-7-2024.pdf) is not included in the evaluation section.
  • How are the parameters trained for the other methods? Was the same setting used for all images? How were the parameters trained? 
  • I suggest that Table 1 and Figure 5 show the results of all tested methods.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find the attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop