AI-Prepared Autonomous Freshwater Monitoring and Sea Ground Detection by an Autonomous Surface Vehicle

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The paper is very chaotic. It is difficult to follow the thought stream of the authors. Major revision is necessary but no specific suggestions can be made in order to guarantee improvement. The authors should follow simple common rules for writing a comprehensive text. Writing short sentences is a good example. It should be followed even more strictly by non native holders of the used language. Another example of a rule would be to keep simple statements or hypotheses and provide concise evidences of their validity. Quite very often the authors talk about “ongoing research” or ideas for future research projects. Those are not helping to support the statements of the authors in their current paper.

The English language is not sufficiently good. There are very obvious mistakes but in addition the authors would probably need help to write the text in more fluent way. Some errors can be found at:

line 138: autonom → autonomous

line 362: “… which It can be used …” → “It” should e omitted: “...

line 376: “… in the virtual world world themselves ….” → double “world” should be corrected

line 404: “… with its explainability the simulation itself.” → no obvious meaning

line: 579: “… also is it necessary …” → needs reordering

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled “AI-prepared autonomous freshwater monitoring and sea ground detection by an autonomous surface vehicle”. We appreciate the time and effort that you have invested in providing your valuable and insightful feedback. We have incorporated changes to reflect of the suggestions provided.

Here is our response to the reviewers’ comments and questions.

• Comment 1: “The paper is very chaotic. It is difficult to follow the thought stream of the authors. Major revision is necessary, but no specific suggestions can be made in order to guarantee improvement.

Response: Thank you very much for your time and your advice. We have changed the structure of the paper so that it is hopefully easier to understand. We have explained our goals and aims in sec 1.1 motivation to show the interdisciplinary research. The structure in detail is explained in sec 2.1 with the additional investigation of the concept in sec. 2.2 to 2.5 and the detailed results of the paper in sec 3 and 4.

• Comment 2: “The authors should follow simple common rules for writing a comprehensive text. Writing short sentences is a good example. It should be followed even more strictly by non native holders of the used language.”

Response: We have done major revision of the English spelling and used shorter sentences as you advised.

• Comment 3: “Another example of a rule would be to keep simple statements or hypotheses and provide concise evidences of their validity. Quite very often the authors talk about “ongoing research” or ideas for future research projects. Those are not helping to support the statements of the authors in their current paper.”

Response: For the better understanding, the hypotheses, and the applications of use are part of the motivation section. At the end there are the parts of the paper named where the individual topics can find.

• Comment 4: “The English language is not sufficiently good. There are very obvious mistakes but in addition the authors would probably need help to write the text in more fluent way. Some errors can be found at” …” Thank you for your revision.”

Response: Same to comment 2. We had checked the language for better understanding.

We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission, and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.

Sincerely,

Sebastian Pose

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this research, the authors developed an autonomous surface vehicle (ASV) that will provide a spatially and depth-resolved water parameter monitoring, bathymetrie detection and respiration measurement. The authors integrated UAV remote sensing, sonar remote sensing and AI technology, this method gives the readers a new way to explore the 3D world especially under the waterbody. But for a paper, there are many important information lost here, and the construction of this paper is chaotic and is more like a report.

(1)   There are two important question should be represented in the Introduction that include why do this research and what is the innovation of it?

(2)   The innovation of this paper is weak now. This paper now is more like an assembled car, the hard ware innovation? Innovation for AI technology to data procession?

(3)   The precision of this method is lost, or the compare between this method and others.

(4)   In the title, the abbreviation of the ASV is not proper here.

(5)   Part 1 and 2 should be combined to the part of Introduction, key scientific or technology issue that the authors want to resolve should be added.

(6)   Figure 2 is not clear.

(7)   Legends of Figure 9 and 10 are lost.

(8)   Figure 13 is not clear.

(9)   Figure 14’s legend is lost.

(10)  In the line 377, the reference is lost.

(11)  In the lie 390, the reference is lost.

(12)  Legends of the figure 17 and 18 are lost.

(13)  Check the line 451.

(14)  Part of conclusion should be added.

(15)  Discussion should be more targeted and detailed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled “AI-prepared autonomous freshwater monitoring and sea ground detection by an autonomous surface vehicle”. We appreciate the time and effort that you have invested in providing your valuable and insightful feedback. We have incorporated changes to reflect of the suggestions provided.

“In this research, the authors developed an autonomous surface vehicle (ASV) that will provide a spatially and depth-resolved water parameter monitoring, bathymetrie detection and respiration measurement. The authors integrated UAV remote sensing, sonar remote sensing and AI technology, this method gives the readers a new way to explore the 3D world especially under the waterbody. But for a paper, there are many important information lost here, and the construction of this paper is chaotic and is more like a report. “

Response: Thank you very much for your response and the opportunity to make some changes. We have changed the structure of the paper by an additional subsection 1.1 motivation to get a better understanding of the concept and the recommended content of the paper.

• Comment 1: “There are two important question should be represented in the Introduction that include why do this research and what is the innovation of it?

Response: To explain these parts subsection 1.1 motivation was added. There the main aims of the research are explained and the focused parts of the paper. It should also help the reader to understand the concept of the paper and the research so that it is not so chaotic.

• Comment 2: “The innovation of this paper is weak now. This paper now is more like an assembled car, the hard ware innovation? Innovation for AI technology to data procession?”

Response: In fact, the comparison with an assembled car is appropriate here. However, we have developed our own ASV based on various requirements of geoenvironmental monitoring, added our sensor technology (multimodal sensor nodes) and wrote our software. The approach to automated control using synthetic data is innovative for mobile robots of this type. It will offer a holistic set of water monitoring data in an modern way of visualization. This paper serves as a concept and presentation of the basic setup for this purpose, with more to follow.

• Comment 3: “The precision of this method is lost, or to compare between this method and others.”

Response: For that, the method explanation in sec. 2. is extended and some new literatures to compare the methods in sec. 1.2 are added.

• Comment 4: “In the title, the abbreviation of the ASV is not proper here.”

Response: The full word replaces the abbreviation.

• Comment 5: “Part 1 and 2 should be combined to the part of Introduction, key scientific or technology issue that the authors want to resolve should be added.”

Response: The introduction and the literature part are combined. For a better context of the research, some more literature is added for a wider range.

• Comment 6: “Figure 2 is not clear.”

Response: the figure is changed, and the related projects are deleted. Now the focus is on the investigations, the combination of the different parts shown like the shape of a house, with a base, different columns and the roof.

• Comment 7: “Legends of Figure 9 and 10 are lost.”

Response: Legends are added and better displayed

• Comment 8: “Figure 13 is not clear.”

Response: For a better understanding, the alignment, and process steps are added to the figure and the labelling is extended.

• Comment 9: “Figure 14’s legend is lost.”

Response: Legend is added and better displayed. The explanation of the reconstruction process on the right side is removed because the model is created by merging.

• Comment 10: “In the line 377, the reference is lost.”

Response: Reference is corrected.

• Comment 11: “In the lie 390, the reference is lost.”

Response: Reference is corrected.

• Comment 12: “Legends of the figure 17 and 18 are lost.”

Response: Legend of the point colour is added.

• Comment 13: “Check the line 451.”

Response: Reference is corroded.

• Comment 14: “Part of conclusion should be added.”

Response: The conclusion is added to the part of discussion and extended by the main part of the paper and connected to the motivation of sec. 1.1

• Comment 15: “Discussion should be more targeted and detailed.”

Response: The discussion and conclusion are extended.

We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission, and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.

Sincerely,

Sebastian Pose

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion, the work is very interesting and promising. The currently observed development of autonomous measurement units allows, for example, for more accurate and faster imaging of e.g. bathymetry of water reservoirs. The work is part of this trend of remote sensing research.
Although the subject matter is particularly current, the authors referred to a fairly modest number of literature items. The literature review should be developed.
The research, although very interesting, requires methodical ordering. I suggest completing and correcting this part of the work.
The manuscript summarizes the results of various studies performed using different techniques. It is particularly important to use scientific divers, whose measurements allow validation and evaluation of the work of the tested equipment. However, there is no in-depth analysis of the results of these studies, for example, accuracy, mean errors, etc. Given the results of extensive research, statistical analyzes of the results obtained are essential. This is essential for the quality of publication in a journal where the most valuable works on remote sensing are also analyzed at the quantitative level, the accuracy of measurements.
As for the quality of the manuscript, the section where the very abbreviated Discussion is placed lacks references to the work of other researchers. This is a serious shortcoming of this work. Discussion of research results is a basic element of valuable scientific work.
In general, I think the work requires redrafting and additions although it is interesting and contains valuable content. After minor revision, it may be considered for publication in the journal Remote Sensing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled “AI-prepared autonomous freshwater monitoring and sea ground detection by an autonomous surface vehicle”. We appreciate the time and effort that you have invested in providing your valuable and insightful feedback. We have incorporated changes to reflect of the suggestions provided.

“In my opinion, the work is very interesting and promising. The currently observed development of autonomous measurement units allows, for example, for more accurate and faster imaging of e.g. bathymetry of water reservoirs. The work is part of this trend of remote sensing research.”

• Comment 1: “Although the subject matter is particularly current, the authors referred to a fairly modest number of literature items. The literature review should be developed.”

Response: Thank you for your support and your advice. We have added some literature for the individual parts of the investigation and further details in sec. 1.2.

• Comment 2: “The research, although very interesting, requires methodical ordering. I suggest completing and correcting this part of the work.”

Response: For the methodical ordering, the fig 2 was changed to get a better understanding of the research concept and the explanation is extended.

• Comment 3: “The manuscript summarizes the results of various studies performed using different techniques. It is particularly important to use scientific divers, whose measurements allow validation and evaluation of the work of the tested equipment. However, there is no in-depth analysis of the results of these studies, for example, accuracy, mean errors, etc. Given the results of extensive research, statistical analyzes of the results obtained are essential. This is essential for the quality of publication in a journal where the most valuable works on remote sensing are also analyzed at the quantitative level, the accuracy of measurements.”

Response: The result and accuracy of the current research are more pointed out in the sec. 3 and more discussed in sec. 5. A real and high intense calculation of mean errors and an overall accuracy in all points were at the current work not possible. This paper serves as a concept and presentation of the basic setup for this purpose, with more to follow. And the accuracy calculation for the combination process and the sonar data was in the current lake, not possible. In the outlook, a further investigation in an artificial water (swimming pool) is named.

• Comment 4: “As for the quality of the manuscript, the section where the very abbreviated Discussion is placed lacks references to the work of other researchers. This is a serious shortcoming of this work. Discussion of research results is a basic element of valuable scientific work.”

Response: For a further discussion, we had added more details and points to rate the results and to improve the method. So, the limits of the current research and system should be clear to understand.

In general, I think the work requires redrafting and additions, although it is interesting and contains valuable content. After minor revision, it may be considered for publication in the journal Remote Sensing.

We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission, and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.

Sincerely,

Sebastian Pose

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors developed an autonomous surface vehicle to provide spatially and depth-resolved water parameter monitoring, bathymetries detection, and respiration measurement. A clustered load system with a high-resolution sonar system was integrated. The paper is of international interest and clearly fits within the scope of the Journal of Remote Sensing. The overall comments on the manuscript are as follows:

 

The novelty remains unclear, please pay particular attention to this point. The clear statements of the novelty of the work should appear briefly in the Abstract and Conclusions sections.

 

The accuracy of the proposed approach and its limitations should be discussed.

 

Add the application of the developed vehicle.

 

Line 2, and Line 4, Avoiding repetition “For this purpose”

 

Line 15, “temperature”, air temperature? ground surface temperature?

 

Please improve the resolution of all figures, such as Fig. 8.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled “AI-prepared autonomous freshwater monitoring and sea ground detection by an autonomous surface vehicle”. We appreciate the time and effort that you have invested in providing your valuable and insightful feedback. We have incorporated changes to reflect of the suggestions provided.

The authors developed an autonomous surface vehicle to provide spatially and depth-resolved water parameter monitoring, bathymetries detection, and respiration measurement. A clustered load system with a high-resolution sonar system was integrated. The paper is of international interest and clearly fits within the scope of the Journal of Remote Sensing. The overall comments on the manuscript are as follows:

• Comment 1: “The novelty remains unclear, please pay particular attention to this point. The clear statements of the novelty of the work should appear briefly in the Abstract and Conclusions sections.”

Response: The novelty is added to the conclusion and named in the abstract.

• Comment 2: “The accuracy of the proposed approach and its limitations should be discussed”

Response: A part of the accuracy of the different sources and methods is added to sec. 3 and added to the discussion in sec. 5.

• Comment 3: “Add the application of the developed vehicle.”

Response: The application of the developed vehicle is added to the sec. 1.1 motivation and to the outlook.

• Comment 4: “Line 2, and Line 4, Avoiding repetition “For this purpose”

Response: The text is changed.

• Comment 5: “Line 15, “temperature”, air temperature? ground surface temperature?”

Response: It is the official measured air temperature, and it is changed.

• Comment 6: “Please improve the resolution of all figures, such as Fig. 8.”

Response: The resolution of the figures is improved.

We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission, and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.

Sincerely,

Sebastian Pose

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The paper has been significantly improved. It is much easier to read. The English has been refined.

The recommendation to the Editor is to publish after minor revision.

The English still need refinement. The are mistakes and inappropriate use of words. It looks like the authors should try to find someone to check their manuscript and do the refinement.

Examples:

line 525: “… there are not enough parameter …” → parameter should be in plural – parameters.

line 529: “… the fishes are hit …” → the us of fish in plural nay not be appropriate in this context.

line 623: :… a proofed measurement concept ….. is done” → proofed should probably be proven but the whole sentence does not sound well in English. A concept can not be done. Perhaps the authors wanted to say “the elaborated concept has been proven”.

line 653: “ So more possible analyses …” → The authors tend to use the word SO a lot more than needed. Written text can be designed without using SO.

Line 654: “The area of investigation is less ….” → The area of investigations is smaller or reduced compared to another piece of area.

This is not an exhaustive list.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled “AI-prepared autonomous freshwater monitoring and sea ground detection by an autonomous surface vehicle”. We appreciate the time and effort that you have invested in providing your valuable and insightful feedback. We have incorporated changes to reflect of the suggestions provided.

Here is our response to the comments and questions.

“The paper has been significantly improved. It is much easier to read. The English has been refined.

The recommendation to the Editor is to publish after minor revision.”

• Comment 1: “The English still need refinement. The are mistakes and inappropriate use of words. It looks like the authors should try to find someone to check their manuscript and do the refinement.”

Response: Thank you for your advice and the explanation of the mistakes. We have changed and checked the text again and focused on articles, plurals and understanding problems of the English text. We have especially checked the usage of the word “So,”.

Examples:

line 525: “… there are not enough parameter …” → parameter should be in plural – parameters.

Changed

line 529: “… the fishes are hit …” → the us of fish in plural nay not be appropriate in this context.

Changed

line 623: :… a proofed measurement concept ….. is done” → proofed should probably be proven but the whole sentence does not sound well in English. A concept can not be done. Perhaps the authors wanted to say “the elaborated concept has been proven”.

Changed

line 653: “ So more possible analyses …” → The authors tend to use the word SO a lot more than needed. Written text can be designed without using SO.

Changed

Line 654: “The area of investigation is less ….” → The area of investigations is smaller or reduced compared to another piece of area.

This is not an exhaustive list.

• Comment 2: “Are all the cited references relevant to the research? Not applicable“

Response: Thank you for your hint, but I am not sure what kind of literature is missing or too much. We have focused on the use of ASV`s with underground detection and monitoring of water quality data. The further literature in sec. 1.2 gives an overview about the single fields of investigation. In the other chapters, the literature is used to explain details or to link to the research of other methods.

We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission, and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.

Sincerely,

Sebastian Pose

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have answer all the questions from me. 

Author Response

Thank you for your support and comments.