Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please consider the following suggestions: Respond to all comments in a thorough and satisfactory manner.

Specify the issue that needs to be addressed and how this effort will advance the field of study that this special issue serves.

Explain in detail what makes your work unique.

Cite the published literature most closely related to the manuscript.

Explain how the present manuscript differs from and improves upon these established previous works.

Include a study with your survey papers and be sure to highlight any knowledge gaps that have come up recently.

Discuss the real time/ practical application of the paper.

Add major contribution in the paper.

What is the significance of this study.

 

Author Response

We are sincerely thankful to the editors and reviewers for their careful reading of the manuscript and their constructive comments. The reviewers’ suggestions and comments helped us improve the manuscript. In the following, we address the comments of the reviewers and list the corresponding changes that were made in the revised manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper addresses an interesting topic, which is written quite well and provides good results. Overall, I think this paper can be accepted after a minor revision.

1. Some symbols need to be modified to avoid ambiguity.  For example, Line 185 and Eq. 1, the "ic" and "jc" may be better changed to "i_c" and "j_c".

2. Line 291, "[−1.08025e6, 74449.1]". The numerical representation should be unified.

3. Line 89, "Zhang Jun et al."  should be "Jun et al."

f [−1.08025e6, 74449.1].

Author Response

We are sincerely thankful to the editors and reviewers for their careful reading of the manuscript and their constructive comments. The reviewers’ suggestions and comments helped us improve the manuscript. In the following, we address the comments of the reviewers and list the corresponding changes that were made in the revised manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author,

My comments and suggestions are as follows:

1) On line 20, in references [1,2] you should add more JCR article references, and not cite theses.

2) On line 39, you say "the projection image does not decay linearly...". If it is not linear, what type of decay is it? exponential type? or what type?

3) In the lines from 44 to 67, some quotes should be included.

4) The statement from line 140 to 143 is not justified, I suppose it will be justified later in quantitative terms. If so, it would be good to say where in the paper this will be demonstrated.

5) Final point on line 146

6) Put the reference of the IEC 61217 standard in line 150.

7) In line 156 it is not clear to me "parameters- and -change".

8) Figure 1,2,3,4,...: final point at the end of the sentence.

9) The Figure 2 show Flowchart of the self-calibration process, will you give the code to the reader in supplementary materials? I think this would be good, as it is only mentioned on line 264.

10) It is important to describe the physical characteristics of the hardware you use for image acquisition, for example the characteristics of the detector and the x-ray source.

11) Equation 7 has a typographical error: 2.

12) line 254, what type of phantom?

13) Table 3, the first column is confusing to read.

14) Figure 7: "Figure ?? red line".

15) Error on line 291 "[1.08025e6, 74449.1]"

16) A third experiment to validate your proposal should be performed, one that is performed under more realistic circumstances and not with phantoms. Or to quantitatively compare these results with others already published.

Best regards,

Author Response

We are sincerely thankful to the editors and reviewers for their careful reading of the manuscript and their constructive comments. The reviewers’ suggestions and comments helped us improve the manuscript. In the following, we address the comments of the reviewers and list the corresponding changes that were made in the revised manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors present a simple, yet effective approach for self-calibrating portable CBCT systems. Although the described methodology is relatively simple, its effectiveness and elegance recommends it for (weak) acceptance.

Author Response

We are sincerely thankful to the editors and reviewers for their careful reading of the manuscript and their constructive comments. The reviewers’ suggestions and comments helped us improve the manuscript. 

In conclusion, we thank the editors and reviews again for the valuable suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper can be accepted in current form.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Publisher,

In my professional opinion, the paper can be accepted, since various improvements have already been made to the paper and I think it is ready. That's all from me.

Kind regards.