Next Article in Journal
Explaining Ionospheric Ion Upflow in the Subauroral Polarization Streams
Next Article in Special Issue
Radar and Jammer Intelligent Game under Jamming Power Dynamic Allocation
Previous Article in Journal
DyCC-Net: Dynamic Context Collection Network for Input-Aware Drone-View Object Detection
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Influence of Range-Dependent Sound Speed Profile on Position of Convergence Zones

Remote Sens. 2022, 14(24), 6314; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14246314
by Ziyang Li 1,2,3, Shengchun Piao 1,2,3, Minghui Zhang 1,2,3,* and Lijia Gong 1,2,3
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Remote Sens. 2022, 14(24), 6314; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14246314
Submission received: 16 November 2022 / Revised: 7 December 2022 / Accepted: 10 December 2022 / Published: 13 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Array Signal Processing for Target Imaging and Detection)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

By considering the reputation of Journal, the presented manuscript is not suitable to publish in current form. It requires major updates.

My concerns are as follows:

- Out dated topic has been selected for research, and very less number of latest references has been taken in consideration.

- In the Introduction, Problem statement, Motivation, and contributions are missing. Need to add in appropriate place.

- No comparative results are presented. How can one justify performance of proposed method.

- Conclusion is missing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Report

Title: Influence of Range-Dependent Sound Speed Profile on Position of Convergence Zones

The paper is well written and suggested to publish after the following changes.

        i.            In the last part of the introduction, the paper is summarized thoroughly but the novelty of the work is missing. Therefore, it is suggested to add the novelty in the second last paragraph of the introduction.

      ii.            The numerical method should be more explained.

    iii.            How the results are validated? The literature review is added in detail but a comparison to the previous results is missing.

 

    iv.            Plagiarism is detected (23%).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Attached Separately

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

no further comments

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version is quite better and can be considered for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made considerable improvements to the manuscript.

Back to TopTop