Research on Extended Target-Tracking Algorithms of Sea Surface Navigation Radar

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

[1] Lines 349-352: The description of scenario is not clear, please rephrase or use plot to clarify.

[2] Figures 6-9: Please elaborate how to tell apart the clutters and the targets. 

[3] Figure 6: Please double check the caption.

[4] Figures 15-19: Suggest to list the symbol of “estimated centroid” just once.

[5] Lines 435-445: Suggest to add some marks in the referred figures to closely relate the description and the contents in the figures.

[6] Figures 20, 21: Suggest to list only the curve legends of the tracks that appear in the figure.

[7] Figure 23: The estimated velocity of blue and purple curves seems to vary wildly, please explain.

[8] Figures 10-24: The claimed improvements of this method over the other methods were not shown in these figures.

[9] Please explicitly address the advantages of this approach in the Conclusion.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors have proposed an article with the title "Research on Extended Target Tracking Algorithm of Sea Sur- 2 Face Navigation Radar." It is advised that you take into account the following remarks on the article.

1. The article's structure has to be changed in order to clearly explain the novel material this work proposes.

2. Although the authors have described the applicability of CMKF for observations made using sea surface navigation radar, they have not yet provided the new mathematical framework associated with this work, which could contribute some creativity.

3. The performance of the algorithm has only been briefly analysed by the authors, or the reader cannot see it. False track performance, track retention analysis, computational time analysis, comparison of various algorithms, inclusion of clutter, and cases of various densities levels are still to be examined in order to give a thorough understanding of how well the suggested work performs.

4. The authors' experiments used real data. It is advised that authors present a geometrical image that gives a basic overview of the entire tracking environment.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Thank you for submitting your paper. The paper here draws attention to a significant subject. There are a few issues that must be resolved before the publication of the manuscript. Details follow:

Point 1. The abstract and introduction are well-written and well-organized.

Point 2. Please extend the related work section, while including more state-of-the-art studies.

Point 3. Please check the abbreviation in the sentence “For tracking extended target objects represented using the elliptical random hypersurface model, article [8] presents new findings and insights (RHM).

Point 4. The novelty of the study should be more specifically expressed at the end of the introduction.

Point 5. Please check and define all abbreviations at the first use in the text.

Point 6. Please consider reorganizing the Figures, it is possible to give some additional information using supplemental data.

Point 7. Please check and resize Figure legends, font size, etc…

Point 8. Please add recently published studies and compare the state-of-the-art studies in this field with this study in the result section.

Point 9. Please find a better way to express data availability "Data Availability Statement: All data are actually measured in the project. Therefore, it cannot be made publicly available for other researchers."

Point 10. Please use a block diagram, if possible, to show the general structure of the system in the method, to become more reader-friendly.

Point 11. References are adequate but recent studies are limited. Please include a comparison of your results with the recent studies in this field. It is important to expand comparison by including state-of-the-art studies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Please see the attached report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Previous comments have been addressed.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

In response to earlier suggestions made on the article, authors have tried to accommodate most of the concerns. In its present form, i would like to accept the article.  

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

I have no further comments.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think it is necessary to do is a revision on the exposition of the written text. The formulas are shfte from the text.

Author Response

Thank you for your approval.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments

1. Related Work section is missing so authors are advised to create that with separate heading and detailed review of all the relevant articles by addressing their limitations, gaps and strengths of their work.

2.Also, it is highlu  sugegsted to consider this <Dynamic application partitioning and task-scheduling secure schemes for biosensor healthcare workload in mobile edge cloud>

3. Contribution and research problems are unclear so can be rewritten 

4. Psuedocode and flowchart of the proposed method must be presented for clear and better insight to readers

5. More details can be added in the captions of all figures and title of tables 

6. Limitations of the propsoed methods must be addressed clearly 

7. Still results section is weak, so must be improved by adding more results

Paper needs major improvements 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviews for Authors

·       What is the motivation of the proposed work?

·       Introduction needs to explain the main contributions of the work clearer.

·       The novelty of this paper is not clear. The difference between present work and previous Works should be highlighted.

·       Authors must explain in detail the introduction section.

·       Authors must develop the framework/architecture of the proposed methods

·       There is need of flowchart and pseudocode of the proposed techniques

·       Proposed methods should be compared with the state-of-the-art existing techniques

·       Research gaps, objectives of the proposed work should be clearly justified.

To improve the Related Work and Introduction sections authors are highly recommended to consider these high-quality research works < A Compact High-Gain Coplanar Waveguide-Fed Antenna for Military RADAR Applications >,

·       English must be revised throughout the manuscript.

·       Limitations and Highlights of the proposed methods must be addressed properly

·       Experimental results are not convincing, so authors must give more results to justify their proposal.

Major changes are required 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf