Improved Iterative Closest Contour Point Matching Navigation Algorithm Based on Geomagnetic Vector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has many aspects to be further improved.

1. My biggest concern lies in the experiments. The proposed method is not compared with state-of-the-art methods, and the survey on existing works is quite poor. This makes the experiments unconvincing.
2. The survey on existing works is not solid. Many closely related works are missing given that there are only 15 papers cited. For example, Fusion of magnetic and visual sensors for indoor localization: Infrastructure-free and more effective, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia.
3. The third concern lies in the English language of the paper, which can be improved. Moreover, the key contributions of this paper is not clear and highlighted. 

Author Response

Thanks for your comment very much. Based on your constructive comments and advice, we have studied the comments carefully and revised the paper under the advice. The following is a point-to-point response to the reviewers’ comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Navigation of autonomous vehicles is one of the most important research topics in recent years. In recent years, unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs), which are sometimes known as underwater drones or hydro drones, have become popular for hydrographic jobs and other underwater missions. These vehicles can operate underwater without a human occupant. They can be divided into two categories: Remotely Operated underwater Vehicles (ROVs), which are remotely controlled by a human operator, and Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs), which operate independent of direct human input. One important problem associated with UUVs is precise vehicle positioning during movement in an underwater environment where the applicability of satellite navigation systems is limited by the need to place a receiver antenna over the water. Interactions with satellite positioning systems take place by at least partially surfacing the platform, which increases the risk of destroying it. It may be possible to position unmanned platforms that move in deep water using comparative navigation methods. The reviewed article is devoted to this topic.
2. General remarks:
   1. Too many abbreviations make it difficult to follow the content of the article. Each abbreviation should be expanded the first time it appears. Not all readers need to know all abbreviations. Especially in the title and in the abstract of the article.
   2. The bibliography is too poor. Additional items should be examined including but not limited to:
      • Wu M., Yao J. Adaptive UKF-SLAM Based on Magnetic Gradient Inversion Method for Underwater Navigation. Lectures Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 9245, pp. 237-247, (2015).
      • Stateczny A., Blaszczak-Bak W., Sobieraj-Zlobinska A., et al, Methodology for Processing of 3D Multibeam Sonar Big Data for Comparative Navigation. Remote Sensing, vol. 11, 2245; (2019).
      • Zhang T., Li Y., Tong J. An autonomous underwater vehicle positioning matching method based on iterative closest contour point algorithm and affine transformation. 231, issue 3, pp. 711-722, (2017).

3. Please use the language of a scientific research report without personal references. Some of them could be found: line 121, “Therefore, we should increase”, line 213 “We make full use”.

4. The paper lacks information about the data sources used for processing with matching algorithm.

5. However the article is very well written should be carefully edited. Very few remarks included below.

3. Specific remarks
   1. 3 - there's no point in giving the titer in kilometers if it's just an illustrative drawing
   2. 6 – axes description matching error should be done in meters.

Author Response

Thanks for your comment very much. Based on your constructive comments and advice, we have studied the comments carefully and revised the paper under the advice. The following is a point-to-point response to the reviewers’ comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My concerns are addressed.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised the paper in accordance with the review instructions and the paper can now be published.