Detecting Maritime Obstacles Using Camera Images

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper presents the original comparative analysis of most effective methods for detecting maritime obstacles by comparing the distances measured through monocular and stereo vision based on image coordinates.

For this analysis, the authors of the paper use the YOLOv5 detection system, having excellent speed and accuracy, to develop a model for detecting aquaculture buoys found along the marine coast.

1. In the final section of Section1 - Introduction, it would be advisable to formulate the thesis.

2. Section 2.1 should be supplemented with data on the neural network used and the type of activation function.

3. In the final part, Section 4 - Discusion & Conclusions, present the plan for further research in more detail and indicate the place of their practical application.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind comment about my manuscript. I has revised and uploaded my manuscript as your comment. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is well performed. However, performance between monocular and stereo vision depends upon how well the algorithm is written. It is viable that monocular possess less computation cost, however the algorithm must be given a careful consideration to get the accurate results. Some comments must be addressed by authors for improvisation of this manuscript:

1. Please rename section 1 as "Introduction and Background".

2. Author needs to add substantial content in literature review-Section 1, about the applicability of Monocular vision for object detection used by other researchers.

3. Pease add Flowchart of the proposed method in Section 3. 

4. Authors are encouraged to incorporate pseudocode.

5. Discussion Section should be separate and must elaborate on the impact outcome results with regard to Experiment A and Experiment B.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your kind comment about my manuscript. I has revised and uploaded my manuscript as your comment. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper can be accepted after minor revisions:

1-      Introduction suffers from lack of motivations and innovations. It should be expanded to include a more detailed discussion of current problems.

2-      Please compare your results and research with the results of other authors and underline what is the scientific novelty in this work.

3-      The interpretation of results should be well written in the paper. The results need further technical discussions.

4-      The Limitations of the proposed study need to be discussed before conclusion.

5-      The findings in "Conclusions" Section should be stated point by point. A contextualization has to be added as incipit, in order to make the Conclusions section self-standing. Please make a few-line conclusion about the work. It can be the essence of all the results. It should be suggestive about the best practice for future works.

6-      Author should add separate section regarding future outlook and specific comment point wise based on their study.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind comment about my manuscript. I has revised and uploaded my manuscript as your comment. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf