Next Article in Journal
Reducing the Influence of Systematic Errors in Interference Core of Stepped Micro-Mirror Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer: A Novel Calibration Method
Previous Article in Journal
Drought Monitoring Using Landsat Derived Indices and Google Earth Engine Platform: A Case Study from Al-Lith Watershed, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Use of Sentinel-3 Altimetry Data to Assess Wind Speed from the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model: Application over the Gulf of Cadiz
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Characterizing Coastal Wind Speed and Significant Wave Height Using Satellite Altimetry and Buoy Data

Remote Sens. 2023, 15(4), 987; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15040987
by Panagiotis Mitsopoulos * and Malaquias Peña
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(4), 987; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15040987
Submission received: 3 December 2022 / Revised: 5 February 2023 / Accepted: 7 February 2023 / Published: 10 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Coastal Area Observations Based on Satellite Altimetry Data)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

To begin with, I would like to make it clear that the content of the paper is of excellent quality and potentially very useful for any researcher or professional working in the field of sea wave measurement and analysis. There is plenty of data on wind speed and wave significant height, both from fixed stations and satellite, and the Authors are obviously very competent in the matter of data analysis and altimeter  data handling.

The reason I suggest a “major revision” is twofold.

-The first issue is the quality of the writing:  many paragraphs are hard to understand, the construction of the sentences is often awkward, sometimes there is too much detail, some other times some aspects are neglected. It has nothing to do with the quality of the English language, which is fine,  it probably depends on the haste with which the work was written.  I have tried to point out some shortcomings in the annexed pdf file, but I would like to advise the Authors to re-read the paper carefully and to rewrite the text whenever necessary.

-The second aspect concerns the Editor, rather than the Authors. I believe that the paper would fit very well in a  journal specialized in marine technology, or oceanography, rather than in “Remote Sensing”, since there is very little in the matter of sensor science or technology. But then, again, it is up to the Editor to decide.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents the study of SWH and wind speed in near-shore areas using buoy and altimetry. traditionally, the altimetry data should not be used in near-shore areas 50km off the coast. The authors applied the buoy data to validate and correct the altimetry data to reveal SWH and wind speed characteristics in the near shore areas. The approach seems to work fine. They can analyze the seasonal variations using the merger data from five altimeters. The approach is OK with me, but the author can apply more advanced algorithms such as artificial intelligence (AI) techniques in my view. I have some references below for the authors to see if they can help solve the problem more directly and efficiently.

Ref1: Li, X., et al. (2020). "Deep-learning-based information mining from ocean remote-sensing imagery." National Science Review 7(10): 1584-1605.

Ref2:  Zhang, X., et al. (2022). "Oceanic internal wave amplitude retrieval from satellite images based on a data-driven transfer learning model." Remote Sensing of Environment 272: 112940.

More references can be found using the AI algorithm to solve oceanic problems. I think this problem can also be solved using the AI technique, maybe with better performance. For this work, I think its OK for now.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No more comments.

Author Response

To Reviewer 1: Thank you again for reviewing our manuscript and for your significant contribution to our work.

Yours sincerely,

Panagiotis Mitsopoulos

Back to TopTop