Detection Performance Evaluation for Marine Wireless Sensor Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Excellent paper with minor checks:

Line 160: are ordered instead

Line 162: This verifies the fact,

Line 167: scenarios

Line 179: space between "the math"

Author Response

Line 160: are ordered instead

Thanks for you kind advice, we have changed the corresponding position.

Line 162: This verifies the fact,

Thanks for you kind advice, we have changed the corresponding position.

Line 167: scenarios

Thanks for you kind advice, we have changed the corresponding position.

Line 179: space between "the math"

Thanks for you kind advice, we have changed the corresponding position.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper claims to perform a global detection performance evaluation for MWSNs. The article can be enhanced by the following:
1- The abstract is too short and should include a summary of the results.
2- Keywords, add another 3-4 more keywords.
3- The introduction is very short and must be enhanced to include the latest in the field. It should also have the paper's contribution before the organization paragraph as bullet points 3-5.

4- The paper must have a better contribution to be accepted.

5- This work is not original and has no merit. Authors are encouraged to add more contributions before resubmitting.

Author Response

1 The abstract is too short and should include a summary of the results.

Thanks for you kind advice, we have added more introduction of this manuscript in the abstract part.

2- Keywords, add another 3-4 more keywords.

Thank you very much, three more key words are added.

3- The introduction is very short and must be enhanced to include the latest in the field. It should also have the paper's contribution before the organization paragraph as bullet points 3-5.

We have added more about latest information of this filed in the reference, thank you very much.

4， The paper must have a better contribution to be accepted.

The contribution of this paper has been discussed and  more clearly expressed in introduction and conclusion part, thanks again.

5- This work is not original and has no merit. Authors are encouraged to add more contributions before resubmitting.

The contribution and conclusion are rewritten to express the contribution and result in this manuscript, thanks again for reviewer’s kind suggestion. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The following comments must be addressed:

1. There are many grammatical and typing errors in the paper. sentence phrasing must be improved. 

2. Section 4 should be renamed to "Conclusion"

3. Future work should be properly elaborated.

4. Conclusion should incorporate the numerical results obtained from simulations.

5. Interpretation of figure 4 is not clear.

Author Response

1,There are many grammatical and typing errors in the paper. sentence phrasing must be improved. 

       The sentences have been polished by processional writer,thank you very much.

2,Section 4 should be renamed to "Conclusion"

       Thank you very much, the name of Section 4 has been renamed.

3,Future work should be properly elaborated.

        we have give more outlook about future work, thanks again.

4,Conclusion should incorporate the numerical results obtained from simulations.

         The numerical results have been incorporated in the conclusion part, thanks for your kind advice.

5,Interpretation of figure 4 is not clear.

         The interpretation about Fig. 4 is added in Conclusion. Thanks.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study, the authors need to add more value to the paper. The authors need to increase the article length to an acceptable number of pages that match the journal's quality. Since the paper has no contribution to the research community, I suggest the following:

1- Adding at least 15-20 articles on the state of the art in this area and discussing their contribution and what can be done to build on these studies.  

2-  The authors need to enhance the quality of the article by improving the introduction significantly.

3- The methodology section must be added.

4- The paper has no value, no merit, and no meaningful contribution.

5- The authors are encouraged to change this into a survey article since they have not added any contribution to the research community.

6- A table comparing previous studies must be added with comments from the authors on the limitations of these studies.

Author Response

In this study, the authors need to add more value to the paper. The authors need to increase the article length to an acceptable number of pages that match the journal's quality. Since the paper has no contribution to the research community, I suggest the following:

1- Adding at least 15-20 articles on the state of the art in this area and discussing their contribution and what can be done to build on these studies.  

Answer：The state of the art in this area is discussed as follows:

    Most of researches in this area are divided into two parts. The main work of the first part focuses on signal detection area, which is designed to obtain the high signal-to-noise ratio around the region of target echo signals [9,10]. However, no specific estimation of target detection probability is concerned and the corresponding detection value is not given [11,12]. The another part is concentrated in developing filters with unknown target detection probability, which attempts to alleviate the dependency of algorithm’s performance on the target detection probability. The fundamental mathematical derivation of random finite set framework with unknown background can be found in [13,14,15]. The influence of clutter rate on target detection probability is analyzed in [16]. Furthermore, a direct estimation of the clutter rate is incorporated to the cardinalized probability hypothesis density filter [17], and the same method is introduced in the Generalized Labeled multi-Bernoulli filter [18] . The Expectation Maximization and Markov chain Monte Carlo are used to calculate the clutter rate from real time data at cost of heavy computation burden [19]. Clutters are treated as a pseudo-measurement and used to jointly estimate the detection probability [20]. Nevertheless, all the researches are developed on the assumption that the target detection probability is the same and the range from the sensor to the target is not considered, which does not conform to reality. In addition, the estimation of the target detection probability in a network with random position is rarely studied.

   Thanks for your valuable advice.

2-The authors need to enhance the quality of the article by improving the introduction significantly.

Answer: The introduction is improved bye adding the state of the art in this area, thank you for your useful suggestion.

3-The methodology section must be added.

Answer: For the sake of clarity, the main work of this manuscript are summarized in methodology section. Thanks again.

4-The paper has no value, no merit, and no meaningful contribution.

Answer: The contribution of this paper is summarized in the introduction, compared to the state of the art in this area. Thank you very much.

5-The authors are encouraged to change this into a survey article since they have not added any contribution to the research community.

Answer: I am sorry for not clearly presenting the contribution of this paper in the introduction previously, especially the vacant of the state of the art in this area. The relate part are added in this paper. Thanks again.

6-A table comparing previous studies must be added with comments from the authors on the limitations of these studies.

Answer: This paper is concentrated in developing the framework of estimating the target detection probability in MWSNs scenarios with varying sensor position. The purpose of this manuscript is to give a detection probability estimation in the range perspective view and validate our new algorithm. The relate work is few and the comparing is not the theme of this paper. The future work will be focused on incorporating this method into RFS framework and then the comparing with those filter will be given. Thank for reviewer’s thoughtful advice, we will keep researching.

   Again, Thanks for anonymous reviewer who gives many useful suggestions, which helps a lot to improve the quality of this manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Some queries have been addressed but overall the paper writing is still not acceptable. Extensive editing of English language is required. Conclusion is still poorly written. Introduction is weak, background is not properly discussed. Literature review is not presented. Technical contributions of this paper are not presented clearly.

Author Response

Some queries have been addressed but overall the paper writing is still not acceptable. Extensive editing of English language is required. Conclusion is still poorly written. Introduction is weak, background is not properly discussed. Literature review is not presented. Technical contributions of this paper are not presented clearly.

Answer: Thanks again for reviewer’s foresight advice. We have made following measures to improve our paper.

1）The introduction is improved bye adding the state of the artin this area, thanks.

2）The overall writing , especially for mathematical equation, is polished by professors. If any specific inappropriate grammar of this paper should be corrected, please let us know and we will try our best to improve it.

3）The contribution of this paper is summarized in the introduction. compared to the state of the art in this area. For the sake of clarity, the main work of this manuscript are summarized in methodology Thanks again.

4）The conclusion is rewritten, the main works of this paper are summarized. Thank you very much.

Thanks for anonymous reviewer who takes time out of your busy day to list valuable advice for this paper, Thanks again!

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed all previous comments and clarified all concerns.

Reviewer 3 Report

Various queries have been addressed in a satisfactory manner.