An Image Quality Improvement Method in Side-Scan Sonar Based on Deconvolution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

GENERAL COMMENTS   1. What is the main question addressed by the research? Image quality improvement of SSS 2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Relevent but can be improved 3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? Noise removal of SSS 4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered? See below 5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Yes 6. Are the references appropriate? See below   MORE COMMENTS 1. Abstract - Please include at least one more sentence to explain your method. 2. Abstract - Please include a value (number) of your result. 3. Method - Deconvolution is too generic. Can you explain more about this method? 4. Method - Deconvolution is widely used. How your's is different than the others? 5. Detection and recognition are different. Need to differentiate them. 6. Introduction - Other than research gaps, you also need to add objective and contribution of your study in the last paragraph of Introduction. 7. Method - Most formulas & parameters are not properly introduced. 8. Method - Lucy Richardson is widely used for image improvement. How your's is different than the others? 9. Results - need to elaborate more regarding your results. 10. Results - evaluation metric must be stated. 11. Results - SNR, CR, CSR alone are not enough to prove the effectiveness of your methodology. Please include MSE, SSIM, RMSE and others to complement your current results. 12. Conclusion - can be improved by adding the crucial results (any number?) 13. References - 25/46 = 54% references are out-of-date (more than 5 years). Please reduce until 20%

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents the image quality improving method in Side Scan Sonar. The authors has developed a new algorithm to improve the conventional pulse compression in which the deconvolution algorithm is used. And their results show better results compared the conventional method. Especially, the experiment result is one of the highlights of this paper. This paper is consists of the theoretical development, the numerical modelling and the laboratory experiment. And the contents are well organized and supported each other. Overall, I think this manuscript looks interesting for readers, and it could be publicized after minor revision.

 

Before proceeding to the final decision, the authors have to address all of the comments listed below:

 

1. In the abstract, a lot of attention is paid to research methods and very little research results. More comparative results should be added to the abstract.

 

 

2. In Section 2, the diagrams of this method have to be included in the manuscript for the importance of completion.

 

3. In Section 2.1, the Eq(6) may have some mistake, you should check and modify it.

 

4. In Section 2.2, in the Eq(10)-(12), the objective function is discussed. It is necessary to describe in more detail the physical meaning and mathematical models of the objective function.

 

5. In Section 3.3, the improved method and the traditional method are used to image real small targets in the sea experiment. The autonomous segmentation results are given. I don't think the title of this section is appropriate. It would be better to title it "The effect of algorithms on small targets imaging and autonomous segmenting ".

 

6. In Section 3.2,3.3,and 3.4, the processing of experimental data are discussed. It is necessary to make some additions to the experimental conditions, such as working frequency and water depth.

Fine to me.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper deals with An Image Quality Improving Method in Side Scan Sonar based on deconvolution, however, is necessary to clarify some processes used to perform this analysis. Also, some factual clarifications will be helpful as highlighted in the comments below. 

-There is any describe the filtering process and its characteristics, to prevent noise influences from other signals.

-Is there any effect due to the effects of environment (raining, snow, waves)?

-Improve the conclusions.

-State the novelty in the introduction.

-Is possible to predict an error measurement? There is any delay?

-How these results can be extrapolated to consider other conditions ?

-It is necessary to include more details of the algorithms and processes used.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

In the Abstract, the authors mentioned to the effect of shallow water environment on the image quality detection, i.e., "Especially, when it works in shallow water environment, the image quality would be influenced by the strong bottom reverberation or other targets on the seabed." It is not clear for the reader the data that used by authors for simulation whether it belongs to shallow water environment or deep water environment!!! 
If the date that used for simulation belongs to shallow water environment, which simulation in section 3.1 is considered due to shallow water environment? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All comments have been revised.