Magnetic Gradient Tensor Positioning Method Implemented on an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Platform

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Elaborate the term AUV in the abstract section. Provide the key contributions at the end of the Introduction section. What is the computational complexity of the proposed vertical gradient algorithm? Tabulate the simulation parameters in section 3. Enlarge the figure 4 and extend the illustration. What the significant improvement made over the existing relevant research?

Author Response

Thank you very much for agreeing to review this manuscript. We have carefully read your comments and have made efforts to address each one of them. We hope that after this revision, the manuscript has been improved to meet your standards (the modified text is highlighted).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is devoted to the new magnetic gradient tensor measuring device for underwater drones. Two architectures were investigated and compared during field experiments with real UAV. The paper is well-written and contributes to the chosen field of engineering. 

However, I have some minor questions and remarks for the Authors. Please, find them below.

First, it is unclear which type of noise was used in this study? How the form of noise can influence the performance of the devices?

I recommend redrawing Fig. 3 to better correspond ISO (or some other reasonable) block-scheme standard. It looks weird in the current version. The possible solution is separating the scheme and full algorithm description as pseudo-code or stage list.

The caption of Fig. 4 is to be corrected:

"... structure component measurementsl Algorithm"

"As shown in the figure, the measured values" - please, give a figure number every time when you do references to it.

Fig. 7 represents the magnetometer data before and after correction. However, it does not tell reader much about the real and relative error of the measurement, showing the absolute values. Maybe it is of reason to implement some raw data postprocessing here?

Some wrong capitalization of letters can be found throughout the manuscript.

How can the propulsion (and other systems) of UAV influence the magnitometer readings? Will this impact differ for propeller-driven UAV and biomorphic vehicle? 

Please, clarify the scientific (not engineering, which is undoubted) novelty of your work during the revision. The sentence "this study proposes the integration of an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) with vertical profiling capabilities as a dynamic platform for housing the magnetic surveying array" clearly indicates that the purpose of the study was designing \ developing the experimental setup, not obtaining some scientific results. The presence of some magnetic field equations in the paper does not save situation much.

Nevertheless, I like this practically-oriented study and believe that it can be accepted for publication after only minor revisions. I wish the Authors success with their future projects.

Requires moderate proofreading.

Author Response

Thank you very much for agreeing to review this manuscript. We have carefully read your comments and have made efforts to address each one of them. We have provided detailed explanations in our subsequent responses. We hope that after this revision, the manuscript has been improved to meet your standards (the majority of the text is highlighted, but the theme and core content of the article have not been modified).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper deals with an interesting and practically applicable issue. In my opinion, it is a study to deal with a necessary problem. Nevertheless, there are certain areas that require attention to ensure its suitability for publication. I recommend a thorough review and revision of the submission in line with the following comments:

1/ Acronyms (AUV) should be avoided in the title and abstract of the paper.

2/ In the introduction, the literature review seems to be not enough. Some recent relevant reference papers should be added and cited in the introduction. The background and necessity of the current research are poorly stated in the introduction. So, the authors will reorganize the introduction part and give your work contributions in detail compared with existing results.

3/ What are the limitations inherent in the proposed approach? Furthermore, what key factors contribute to the superior performance of the proposed method? It is essential to explicitly outline both the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed approach. Notably, in comparative studies, the results demonstrate superior performance compared to established algorithms, based on the assumed criteria.

4/ Please furnish comprehensive implementation details, including hardware and software specifics, configurations, and settings. A thorough discussion on the hardware and software components employed in your system is necessary, along with the specifications for simulating the proposed approach.

5/ In the results section, it is advisable to include a broader range of design parameters and comparisons with existing results to substantiate the effectiveness of the proposed method. Expanding the manuscript to encompass a thorough comparison between the proposed method and well-established algorithms from the literature would greatly enhance its overall quality.

6/ For the results presented in the Figures in the simulation, more explanations on them seem necessary and helpful to readers.

7/ To demonstrate the superiority of the proposed controller, it is advisable to provide quantitative measurements or performance metrics for a more rigorous evaluation.

8/ Enhancements are needed in terms of readability and presentation in the work. Additionally, it is crucial to rectify grammar issues and typos.

 

 

It is crucial to rectify grammar issues and typos.

Author Response

Thank you very much for agreeing to review this manuscript. We have carefully read your comments and have made efforts to address each one of them. We have provided detailed explanations in our subsequent responses. We hope that after this revision, the manuscript has been improved to meet your expectations (the majority of the text is highlighted, but the theme and core content of the article have not been modified).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have successfuly address the comments

Reviewer 3 Report

I accept amendments made by authors. The paper can be accepted in this version.

Minor!