LR-MPIBS: A LoRa-Based Maritime Position-Indicating Beacon System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Regarding the English language, I think it is fit for a manuscript in a research journal, as very few mistakes have been found throughout the paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer：
Please refer to the attachment for the details of the modifications we have made based on our review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors claim the implementation of a low-power drowning detection circuit LoRa-based to detect drowning accidents on time after a person falls into the water.

In general, the paper is well-structured and written, however:

1.- Section 3 needs attention; subsection 3.6, in particular, needs more development. In 3.6, the authors say real experiments were conducted in the Huanghai Sea area. Nonetheless, it is recommended to include the characteristics of the achieved tests and the statistics of the performed experiments.

2.- Figures need more quality and size; some text on them is not legible.

more comments：

1.- It is necessary to experiment on the real case by constructing different scenarios that show that the proposed system is adequate for drowning accidents at sea.

1.1.- To include all the statistics derived from the experiments

2.- Including a comparison of the proposed system against similar approaches in experiments is highly recommended.

2.1.- It would be interesting to add a table with advantages and the inconvenience of the present approach facing similar ones.

Author Response

Dear reviewer：
Please refer to the attachment for the details of the modifications we have made based on our review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes LoRa-based Maritime Position Indicating Beacon System (LR-MPIBS).

It is organized well. but it would be better if the authors consider and address the followings:

- Recent related works (published in recent 3~4 years) need to be compared with the proposed system in experiments; The authors show only the performance of the proposed system. The most insufficient part of this paper is the evaluation of the performance and efficiency of the proposed method through comparison with related studies. It is necessary to compare and analyze how the performance of the proposed method was better than other methods proposed so far through experiments.

- In order to show that the proposed system is effective for drowning accidents at sea, it is necessary to construct a real-case scenario and show the performance as experiments at sea instead of part experiments. Since the conclusions were also made solely from the analysis of this proposed method itself, there is a lack of comparative evidence to argue for a better positioning system compared to other approaches or methods. Therefore, it is necessary to conclude through comparative analysis with other related studies in the evaluation section.

Author Response

Dear reviewer：
Please refer to the attachment for the details of the modifications we have made based on our review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reading this new version, I realized the effort made by the authors to improve the manuscript from the commentaries and observations made by reviewers.

Consequently, the paper is ready to be considered for publication by the editors.