Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has addressed all of my concerns and I have no further comment. The current manuscript is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your consideration and the insightful comments which greatly help us to improve the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author's efforts in improving the manuscript are commendable, and the revisions made have significantly enhanced the quality of the paper. The submission meets the publication criteria; however, further attention should be given to refining the grammar and sentence structure for better clarity and coherence. Additional refinement in these areas will undoubtedly elevate the overall readability and impact of the research findings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author demonstrates a good understanding of the research topic and presents their ideas clearly in the manuscript. However, there are several areas where the author's English proficiency could be further improved to enhance the overall quality of the writing. Attention to grammar, sentence structure, and academic language usage would benefit the clarity and coherence of the paper. With some additional refinement in these aspects, the manuscript has the potential to effectively communicate the research findings to a wider audience.

Author Response

Thank you for your consideration and the insightful comments which greatly help us to improve the manuscript and increase the quality. In this revision, we have carefully checked the writing of the manuscript and made some corrects about grammar, sentence structure, and academic language usage throughout the manuscript.

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences should be further polished.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the term SNR (signal-to-noise ratio) was used in numerous places in the paper, SNR was not formally defined. This definition needs to be included in the paper. Some more formal determination of the computational complexity of the estimation algorithm compared to other algorithms such as other Deep Learning Algorithms and MUSIC would improve the paper. Overall, the paper is excellent and presents some significant contributions to the field of direction-of-arrival estimation.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See Attachment. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf