A UAV Wind Field Perception System Inspired by Biological Perception
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
the authors should put a picture for albatross bird.
Line 96, is it full statement? check it.
line 110, there is no ref. in ref. list.
line 164, which no. of Figure.
the no. of figures must have one number NOT like Figure 3-3, or 3-2.
The references are so little.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Reported above
Author Response
Your comments are really thoughtful and helpful. It is important to us. Thus, we revised the manuscript, following your comments exactly.We uploaded a copy of the revised manuscript at the site.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The novelty of the paper is not emphasized enough, I do not see the novelty in the measurement system used. The measurements only have some minor results. An extensive measurement campaign with thorough evaluation is needed for journal publication.
The editing of the paper is very poor:
-sentence parts are mixed
-referenced figures are missing
-figure quality is poor
-axis labels are missing
-there is Chinese text in one figure
English proofreading is recommended.
Author Response
Your comments are really thoughtful and helpful. It is important to us. Thus, we revised the manuscript, following your comments exactly.We uploaded a copy of the revised manuscript at the site. We have checked the senteces and the error of the figures and format. We will upload the figure file to the site. We also added some discussion and analysis about the system and the results.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors need to restructure the manuscript according to the journal standard. Most of the important details are missing out. Refer to the reviewed manuscript for the other details.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Extensive editing is required.
Author Response
Your comments are really thoughtful and helpful. It is important to us. Thus, we revised the manuscript, following your comments exactly.We uploaded a copy of the revised manuscript on this site.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors presented a wind field sensing system, and as a whole, I don't think this is a quality manuscript.
I offer the following comments on the manuscript:
1. Why is there CHINESE in the manuscript???
2. I think the abstract and introduction are poorly written, and the abstract takes up two-thirds of the space in the context of the study. The authors need to rewrite the abstract from four perspectives: purpose, methods, results, and conclusions. In contrast, the introduction section does not have any background introduction, and the first word in the whole text is the name of the person. In addition, the authors focus on comparing the current status of China with that of the United States, Germany, and Australia in the introduction, which should be avoided. The authors need to meticulously summarize the current state of existing research, presenting what has been done and what is currently lacking in the relevant field, but the manuscript does little of this, citing only 10 references. the final paragraph of the Introduction should be short and without references. Include the research hypothesis, objectives, and questions.
3. Coordinate transformations are fundamental to engineering mechanics, so this cannot be considered as an innovation in the authors' research, and I think this work lacks innovation. In addition I think section 2.2 is too cumbersome and needs better expressions such as using tensor.
4. The figure is so, so, so blurry! I carefully identified the figure to try to get valid information, but couldn't do it. Clear and legible figures from the author are needed. In particular, I ask the author to upload the file of all the graphs in the manuscript in editable form (txt, origin, matlab, etc.) as an attachment, because it is currently difficult for the authors to prove the originality of this work
5. Where is Figure3-8? And what is Figure3-8? This part should be the focus of the manuscript, but the authors have passed over it, and even the figure is labeled but not given. The authors need to use a combination of figures and text to explain the model building process and computational details in detail, so that the reader has the opportunity to reproduce this work.
6. The manuscript uses a lot of descriptive statements and presents too much data on engineering details that may not be closely related to the study. What can readers take away from the manuscript that will be useful to them?
7. I think the discussion section is written too briefly and the shortcomings of the study should be a small part of the discussion. The authors need to summarize the results of the experiment and briefly compare the results with previous studies. Further, the authors need to specify what are the innovations of the study? What are the practical implications of the study? What can the reader gain? What are the prospects for future work?
8. The formatting of the manuscript is very poor and the authors are requested to carefully adjust the formatting against the journal's standards.
9. I noticed that the average publication date of the references may be around 2000, is this work done by the authors in 2005? The classic literature of the 19th and last century is important, but I think the literature of the last 3 years is equally important, but it is very unfortunate that the manuscript has only one literature after 2010.
Author Response
Your comments are really thoughtful and helpful. It is important to us. Thus, we revised the manuscript, following your comments exactly.We uploaded a copy of the revised manuscript on this site.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I can recommend that it is prepared for publishing on your journal
it is good
Author Response
Thanks for your review. Wishing you a pleasant day.
Reviewer 2 Report
Improvements have been made on the Introduction chapter. However, the text of the Results section remained practically unchanged. Figure 9 includes different data than before, however the description in the text did not change at all. I still recommend to resubmit the paper when more measurement results are available.
Quality is still poor, English proofreading recommended.
Author Response
Thanks for your review review again. As for the data in figure 9, I really need to say sorry to you, I checked that in the first version of the manuscript，it's not the final figure I used， so I changed the figure in the manuscript. But an error occurred during the editing of the legend, now the data and the text have been corrected. Sorry about the error during the writing process.
Reviewer 3 Report
All the queries have been addressed by the authors.
Author Response
Thanks for your review. Wishing you a pleasant day.
Reviewer 4 Report
Although the authors have made many revisions, these revisions only bring the manuscript closer to the format of a paper, and unfortunately the manuscript still leaves much to be desired in terms of innovation and workload, and the readers cannot gain meaningful information by reading this manuscript.
In addition to the huge problems of innovation and workload, a large number of details mentioned in the first review have not been addressed
For example, the manuscript does not cite the latest research results at all
For example, the coordinates of the curves are labeled in Chinese, which is difficult for the reader to read.
Therefore, I think this manuscript should not be published.
Author Response
Thanks for yours comments, I fixd some error and problem in the paper. Laterly, I will improve my English language editing skill, and the paper orginizing abililty.
