Modeling and Analysis of Sea-Surface Vehicle System for Underwater Mapping Using Single-Beam Echosounder

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. In Abstract，"Bathymetric data are critical for navigational safety and is used for underwater mapping"，the "are" and "is " are in conflict

2.In lines 81-95,all entries listed are the main work of this article only and are not innovative contributions. It is suggested that the innovation points of this article are further condensed.

3.In Section 4, it is recommended to analyze the estimation error after the combination of multiple influencing factors.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We appreciate your time and effort for evaluation of our paper. We have the same deep appreciation for Reviewers as well, who have objectively reviewed our paper. We highly appreciate the detailed valuable comments of the referees on our manuscript of “jmse-1881097”. The suggestions are quite helpful for us, and we incorporate them in the revised paper. We have referred to literature and papers and modified the paper to improve the quality of our paper. We would like to clarify some of the points raised by the Reviewers. And we hope the Reviewers and the Editors will be satisfied with our responses to the ‘comments’ and the revisions for the original manuscript. We would appreciate it further if you consider our revised paper for possible publication in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. We will submit a revised version based on review comments and according to the timing designated by editorial office. We attached the detailed Response to reviewer comments.

Yours Sincerely,

Seda Karadeniz Kartal

Rıfat Hacıoğlu

Sedar Görmüş

Ş. Hakan Kutoğlu

Kemal Leblebicioğlu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have only some minor comments:

 

Line 59: You refer to Figure 2. This is introduction so please avoid it.  

Line 109: Please give reference for the equation

Figure 4: “Depth” instead of “Dept”

Line 253: please replace “see” with another word

Figures 6,7,8: I think it would be better for the reader to try to fit Figures 6,7,8 into one page and thus include them into a single Figure.

Line 306, 310, 322, 341, 344, 345: omit “equals to”

Figures 9, 10, 11 ,12: In all these figures there is always a difference between measured and estimated values. Can you comment on this?

Figure 13: the wave prediction map is very small so it is of no use.  It is better not to include it. Instead you could make the first panel of Figure 13 (experimental area) larger and more clear by rearranging the 3 different parts.

Line 410: “operate” instead of “operates”

Line 415: “isobath” instead of “isobate”

Table 1: The frequency range of the SBES based on Table 1 is from 24 kHz to 210 KHz. Can you please specify the frequency (or frequencies) that you have used to take the measurements?

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We appreciate your time and effort for evaluation of our paper. We have the same deep appreciation for Reviewers as well, who have objectively reviewed our paper. We highly appreciate the detailed valuable comments of the referees on our manuscript of “jmse-1881097”. The suggestions are quite helpful for us, and we incorporate them in the revised paper. We have referred to literature and papers and modified the paper to improve the quality of our paper. We would like to clarify some of the points raised by the Reviewers. And we hope the Reviewers and the Editors will be satisfied with our responses to the ‘comments’ and the revisions for the original manuscript. We would appreciate it further if you consider our revised paper for possible publication in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. We will submit a revised version based on review comments and according to the timing designated by editorial office. We attached the detailed Response to reviewer comments.

 

Yours Sincerely,

Seda Karadeniz Kartal

Rıfat Hacıoğlu

Sedar Görmüş

Ş. Hakan Kutoğlu

Kemal Leblebicioğlu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf