Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript addresses the vast theme of satellite derived bathymetry and proposes a new approach tested in three different places.

The manuscript has several problems:

11)      The structure of the manuscript does not follow the structure of a research paper (Introduction – State-of-of-the art – Objectives – Methods – Results – Discussion – Conclusions.

22)      The first part intends to provide a review on the topic but lacks extensive and important references, and the organization of a review article.

33)      The second part intends to present a new methodology and application to 3 different study areas, but is not well organized either.

In short, and although the methodology is promising and the case studies interesting, the presented research looks more as a white paper than research one, where rules and procedures have to be stickily followed.  As such the MS is not yet up to standard to be published in Remote Sensing, and my recommendation is to Reject in present form. Nevertheless, I encourage the authors to reshape the article into a more traditional form and resubmit it, either as a reserach or review article.

Author Response

• No new draft at this stage
• Point-by-point response to Reviewer-1:

R1_1/ Structure of the manuscript

The manuscript is being currently revised to be structured in six sections: Introduction – State-of-of-the art – Objectives – Methods – Results – Discussion – Conclusions

It should be noted that this paper was intended originally to be a Remote Sensing "Special Issue" for which no specific format had been specified.

R1_2/ First Part: Review on Topic, References

Same as above: Manuscript under revision to make it a Review Article.

This submission was conceived originally as a continuation of the peer-reviewed publication in the International Hydrographic Review, Vol. 24, published on 30 November 2020:

THIRTY YEARS OF SATELLITE DERIVED BATHYMETRY The charting tool that Hydrographers can no longer ignore.

By Henri Dolou, Jean Laporte, Joseph Avis MSc, Olivier Arino

This IHR reference has been added to the manuscript.

R1_3/ Second part: Methodology and application

These two components have been separated to make the article clearer.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Great paper.

Author Response

• No new draft at this stage.
• The First draft has been reorganised along the six following sections: Introduction – State-of-of-the art – Objectives – Methods – Results – Discussion – Conclusions

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents a  new approach to satellite-derived bathymetry. I find your procedure and case study very interesting and I consider you achieved significant results. It is a good paper worth of publication, and I only have a few suggestions  to improve the reading of the text and its understanding.

1.     There is a general issue with the structure of the paper and the way you introduce the topic. I would strongly suggest including a specific methods/methodology chapter clearly differentiated from the results section and specify how you structure the paper in the introduction section.

2.     The authors did not follow the Remote Sensing Journal guidelines, and the structure of the manuscript should be organized into sections and subsections to can follow the manuscript. The references must be numbered in order of appearance in the text. The references section should be written according to the Remote Sensing Journal style. The authors should follow the journal instructions in the revised version (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing/instructions).

3.     What are the uncertainties of data?

4.     Many figures are not clear as they are token via screenshot from the model. The figures quality should be improved

5.     Remove “********” between the manuscript sections

6.       In the conclusion section, it will be important to boldly show the implications of the results obtained in this study.

 

Author Response

• No attachment at this stage. A new draft will be sent separately.
• Point-by-point response to Reviewer-3

R3_1/ Structure of the manuscript

ARGANS Ltd. has taken good note of your recommendations, especially about the structure of the document which will be reorganised in accordance with your standards.

The manuscript is being currently revised to be structured in six sections: Introduction – State-of-of-the art – Objectives – Methods – Results – Discussion – Conclusions

It should be noted that this paper was intended originally to be a Remote Sensing "Special Issue" for which no specific format had been specified.

R3_2/ Uncertainties of data

A paragraph to develop data uncertainties will be added.

R3_3/ Figures

The issue of figures is acknowledged. They indeed are extracted from screen shots which seemed sufficient at this stage for an undefined submission.

An effort will be made to get better images, but the figures are only intended to give an idea of what we are talking about, not to provide the level of details required by a proper scientific publication.

R3_4/ Minor removal

“*******” will be removed

R3_5/ Conclusion

The implications of the new method will be developed in the conclusion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf