Combined Improved CEEMDAN and Wavelet Transform Sea Wave Interference Suppression

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

In this paper, the algorithm description and experimental results are not enough. This paper lacks the comparison with the existing methods, and the results are not sufficient to reflect the innovation and advantages of the paper.

Please revise this paper carefully.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The manuscript was well improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

The authors have now stated that significant wave heights above 50 cm cannot be measured due to limitations of the experiment.  This is a big limitation, but at least now it is stated.  There are many English errors in the manusript (too many to list here).  The authors should correct these errors before the manuscript is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The author has made some textual modifications, but overall, they have not achieved the purpose of the modifications and are not recommended for acceptance.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

The authors have addressed my concerns from the previous round, so I believe the manuscript can now be considered for publication.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposes a novel sea wave interference suppression method based on improved CEEMDAN and wavelet transform. The method divides the phase change into different intrinsic mode functions, and uses the wavelet decomposition and correlation procession to separate the WSAW signal and the sea wave interference.The method can automatically eliminate the wave interference partand reduce the bit error rate.However, there are manyproblems in this paper. The specific problems are as follows:

1.The description of the improved CEEDMAN algorithm in this paper is very vague, which cannot reflect the innovation of the paper.What are the innovative points of improved CEEDMANalgorithm shown in Equation (9) to Equation (14)?

2.The references in the relevant work do not include the last three years, which cannot effectively summarize the progress of existing research.

3.The description of section 3.4 in this article is not convincing. Why not consider the case that the initial reconstruction ratio l is equal to i when the coefficient is greater than 1? Why not consider the case that the IMFs are considered to be WSAW signals when the correlation coefficient is greater than 0.93?

4.This paper should compare the impact of the external environment changes on the proposed method and the traditional filtering algorithms.For example, the wind speed, distance from radar to water, and distance from speaker to water.

5.This paper should provide relevant information about traditional filtering methods and increase the number of traditional filtering methods to 3.At the same time, the description of Figure 7 is inconsistent with the figure, such as “theblack asterisk represents the decoding result of the proposed algorithm”.

6.What is the meaning of CEEMDAN in this paper? The full name of CEEMDAN is not given in this paper.At the same time, there is an expression error in section 3.1 of this paper, such as "T The Imperial Mode Decomposition".

7. As we know, there are some researches on acoustic and electromagnetic integrated communication on sea wave interference. The references are not enough and appropriate.

8. When the correlation coefficient is greater than 0.95, why to choose 0.95?

9. There are some errors, such as ‘T The Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) is’. The grammar of the full text needs to be improved.

10. What’s the effect of original EMD method?

11. In conclusion, the algorithm description and experimental results are not enough.

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Document attached

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This manuscript discusses a new method to suppress wave interference in the context of acoustic and electromagnetic integrated communication (AEIC) technology.  

I am quite concerned that the experimental setup is not realistic and does not reflect true conditions on the ocean surface.  For example, the vertical distance from the radar to the water is given as 1 m in Table 1.  I assume this means that the waves on the water surface cannot exceed 1m.  In reality, ocean surface waves routinely exceed 1 m, and can even exceed 2 or 3 metres in height.  So I am not sure how this experimental setup can be realistic enough to be applied to true ocean conditions.  

If this point can be suitably addressed, then the manuscript may be considered for publication, but as it stands, I think this is a major issue that puts into question the results from this paper.