Next Article in Journal
Trajectory Tracking Predictive Control for Unmanned Surface Vehicles with Improved Nonlinear Disturbance Observer
Next Article in Special Issue
Deep-Neural-Network-Based Receiver Design for Downlink Non-Orthogonal Multiple-Access Underwater Acoustic Communication
Previous Article in Journal
Dynamic Performance of Suspended Pipelines with Permeable Wrappers under Solitary Waves
Previous Article in Special Issue
CR-NBEER: Cooperative-Relay Neighboring-Based Energy Efficient Routing Protocol for Marine Underwater Sensor Networks
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Autonomous Visual Fish Pen Inspections for Estimating the State of Biofouling Buildup Using ROV

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11(10), 1873; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11101873
by Matej Fabijanić *, Nadir Kapetanović * and Nikola Mišković *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11(10), 1873; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11101873
Submission received: 12 September 2023 / Revised: 22 September 2023 / Accepted: 23 September 2023 / Published: 26 September 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

GENERAL   1. What is the main question addressed by the research? Algorithms for ROV & image processing for fish pen. 2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Application is original, but the algorithms are not. 3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? Application of fish pen. 4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered? See comments below. 5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Yes. 6. Are the references appropriate? See comments below.   MORE COMMENTS   1. Title - it is suggested to delete "an" 2. Abstract - too many keywords. It is suggested to have 5 keywords 3. Abstract - Need to include problem statement just before objective 4. Abstract - Need to include a brief conclusion after results description 5. Introduction - this section is too long. It is suggested to summarize some contents such as HEKTOR, etc. 6. Introduction - literature review must be written before research gaps, significant of research/contribution & objective. 7. Methods - Control algorithm & image processing algorithm are not clearly defined. Please include more details regarding the algorithm. 8. Methods - K-means clustering & UNet are not clearly defined. Please include more details regarding the algorithm. 9. Methods - What is the % arrangement of training, testing & validation for AI? 10. Methods - Pre-processing methods are not clear. What methods have been used? 11. Results - Method, set up must be written in Methods section. Not in Results section. 12. Results - There is no result for segmentation accuracy & pre-processing (MSE, PSNR, SSIM, etc). Please include them. 13. Conclusion - Figure & Table in this section must be moved to results section. 14. Reference - 7/20 = 35% out-of-date. However, this is acceptable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I read the paper several times But I could not find any writings related to the following Figures: 5,8,9,10,11 and 12.  Please see attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All comments have been addressed.

Back to TopTop