Review Reports

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