Wildlife Monitoring Using a Multi-UAV System with Optimal Transport Theory
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please check the uploaded document for the comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The author would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their considerate and valuable comments on the manuscript. The manuscript was revised reflecting all reviewers' comments. Modifications are highlighted with blue colors in the revised manuscript. For more details, please refer to the attached file.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper entitled “Efficient Wildlife Monitoring using a Multi-UAV System with Optimal Transport Theory” is devoted to describe and test an experimental system, based on the UAV.
First of all, I found this paper interesting since it deals with highly actual problem of our modern world. The paper is relatively long, however it managed to keep my attention.
In particular, I think that the results obtained from monitoring strategies are the most valuable, since they provide legitimate evidence to support theories applied.
Below, I provide some recommendations for Authors to consider:
- Reconsider the keywords. In my opinion, at the moment the selected one do not fully summarize the content of the paper.
- Move the paragraph Notation from the end of the Introduction section to the beginning of Problem description section. In my opinion, the first word “Notation:” is also redundant.
- Precisely define an UAV since you are using this term in many different contexts.
- Number in a fixed sequence all equations.
- The sequence and the names of the sections should be reconsider. The default structure of the scientific paper in many respectable journals is as follows: (1) Introduction – provides a rationale for conducting research. (2) Theoretical Background or Related Work. (3) Method. (4) Experimental Setup. (5) Results. (6) Discussion. (7) Conclusions.
- I haven’t found the limitations of the elaborated strategy. In my opinion, the limitations specifically concern parameters. Therefore, you need to perform more tests and evaluate obtained results to extract the limitations of your strategy.
- The title of the paper includes the word “efficient”. If you claim that your strategy is efficient, you must compare your strategy with others existing “substitutes” strategies. If you are not willing to compare, you simply need to remove the word “efficient” from the title, and correct the parts of your text that concern this issue.
- Please provide a table in which you summarize all tests for your strategy along with the input parameters and primary output results. Therefore, you can rewrite existing text.
- In your abstract there is no information about the results obtained from the experiments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The author would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their considerate and valuable comments on the manuscript. The manuscript was revised reflecting all reviewers' comments. Modifications are highlighted with blue colors in the revised manuscript. For more details, please refer to the attached file.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have sufficiently addressed all comments made by the reviewer.
Reviewer 2 Report
I think that after major revision your paper is suitable for publication. In my humble opinion, you've made a great effort to improve your paper. Therefore, you have my full support, regarding this study.
Moreover, I think you should continue your research, inspiring, encouarging and facilitationg other researchers and practioners wordwide.
