Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Kindly read the attached file, thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: I miss Table I shows the limitations of range communication (cm, m, km) in every technology exposed. The modulation techniques and protocols are continuously progressing, so this value is very important to give an idea of current state-of the art and future possible applications.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, we have addressed your suggestion. We added range specified in metres and kilometres. We appreciate for mentioning modulation techniques and protocols. We have gathered a number of modulation schemes and protocols and  discussed those applicable to underwater media such as those combined with adaptive and predictive approaches, and machine learning.

Comments 2: I also miss some pictures which illustrate the connectors elements (commented on Table 2) and cables (in Table 3).

Response 2:  Dear reviewer, we thank you for your insights. We have included the pictures 2, 3 of the connectors and we concur with your recommendation, both dry-mate and wet-mate connectors. We added also a picture 1, underwater cable to demonstrate the difficulty in installing underwater cables.

Comment 3: From my point of view, the parameters Absorption and Scattering presented in Table 5, should be formally defined to clarify the values given in the table.

Response 3:  Dear reviewer, we acknowledge the benefit of adding more information to clarify both absorption and scattering coefficients. We added clarity and  footnotes 2 an 3 to define these terms.

Comments 4: Visible Light Communication is a short-range technology in underwater communications that has not been addressed in this work. I think it must be included in the manuscript (including an entry in the
comparative Tables presented, etc.).

Response 4: Dear reviewer, thank you for your observation. Although we had introduced Visible Light Communication, we acknowledge the benefit of adding more references and expanding more on the topic.

Comment 5: Most of the references included do not contain the DOI link. I encourage authors to include it to ease readers to complete information.

Response 5: Dear reviewer, we acknowledge the advantages of adding the DOIs, we have diligently worked on the topic. However, some of the references are not articles, but trusted institutional website, which do not have DOI associated with them.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary
This paper offers a thorough overview of UnderWater (UW) communication systems, exploring their applications in fields such as science, defense, and industry. It provides an in-depth analysis of the ecological impacts of these technologies, particularly focusing on noise pollution and its effects on marine life. The study also highlights strategies to mitigate these effects and discusses the role of emerging technologies like Machine Learning (ML) in monitoring UW ecosystems.

Strengths

• The paper reviews a wide range of UW communication technologies, including both wired and wireless systems, as well as their various implementations.
• The discussion on the environmental consequences of these technologies, especially their impact on aquatic organisms, is detailed and well-supported by references.
• The paper addresses modern solutions, such as ML, which adds a contemporary and innovative dimension to the analysis.
• The use of tables and diagrams helps clarify complex information and enhances the readability of the paper.
• The emphasis of the paper on the potential for sustainable technological advances shows an awareness of long-term ecological and industrial priorities.

Weaknesses

• The paper does not include enough bibliographic references to previous surveys focused on analyzing and evaluating technologies, challenges, and techniques for improving UW communication. Moreover, I noticed a limited discussion on the techniques used to improve the efficiency of UW networks through ML or Model-Based approaches, the latter of which are not even mentioned. A more detailed exploration of these topics would enhance its value as a technical resource.
• While the paper identifies ecological challenges, the proposed strategies to address them are underdeveloped and lack practical detail.
• The paper would benefit from a clearer framework to systematically compare the strengths, weaknesses, and environmental impacts of the technologies discussed.
• Minor typographical errors and repetitive phrases detract from the professionalism of the writing.

Suggested Corrections

• The paper would benefit from incorporating additional references to previous surveys that analyze and evaluate technologies, challenges, and techniques for improving UW communication. A more detailed examination of these aspects would provide readers with a stronger foundation for understanding the field and would significantly enhance the paper’s value as a technical resource. I strongly recommend the authors to add all the following works to deepen and enhance the relevance of their analysis:
• Felemban, E., Shaikh, F. K., Qureshi, U. M., Sheikh, A. A., & Qaisar, S. B. (2015). Underwater sensor network applications: A comprehensive survey. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 11(11), 896832.
• Busacca, F., Galluccio, L., Palazzo, S., Panebianco, A., Qi, Z., & Pompili, D. (2024). Adaptive versus predictive techniques in underwater acoustic communication networks. Computer Networks, 252, 110679.
•  
• The authors should elaborate more on the proposed measures for reducing ecological impacts, offering more specific and actionable solutions.
• The authors should introduce a structured evaluation of the technologies based on factors such as cost, efficiency, scalability, and ecological impact.
• Address repetitive content and typographical errors to improve clarity and maintain reader engagement.

Author Response

Comments 1: 

• The paper would benefit from incorporating additional references to previous surveys that analyze and evaluate technologies, challenges, and techniques for improving UW communication. A more detailed examination of these aspects would provide readers with a stronger foundation for understanding the field and would significantly enhance the paper’s value as a technical resource. I strongly recommend the authors to add all the following works to deepen and enhance the relevance of their analysis:
• Felemban, E., Shaikh, F. K., Qureshi, U. M., Sheikh, A. A., & Qaisar, S. B. (2015). Underwater sensor network applications: A comprehensive survey. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 11(11), 896832.
• Busacca, F., Galluccio, L., Palazzo, S., Panebianco, A., Qi, Z., & Pompili, D. (2024). Adaptive versus predictive techniques in underwater acoustic communication networks. Computer Networks, 252, 110679.

Response 1:  Dear reviewer, the addition of these two articles added value to this survey article. The specificity of the adaptive versus predictive techniques to improve signal transmission integrity and prevent Bit Error rate is truly phenomenal. Furthermore, the application of Machine Language models in combination of adaptive and predictive strategies is surely the state of the art for Underwater Wireless Sensor networks robustness and resiliency.

Comments 2: The authors should elaborate more on the proposed measures for reducing ecological impacts, offering more specific and actionable solutions.

Response 2:  Dear reviewer, we included the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals 14 and Geveva Conventions to address your suggestion. We discussed these goals and how technologies can be used to meet those goals.

Comments 3:  The authors should introduce a structured evaluation of the technologies based on factors such as cost, efficiency, scalability, and ecological impact.

Response 3: Dear reviewer, we have reworked on the survey to resolve the recommendations. We have addressed the cost of technologies, their scalability and ecological impacts.

Comments 4: Address repetitive content and typographical errors to improve clarity and maintain reader engagement.

Response 4: Dear reviewer, we revisited the survey and we indeed noticed a few typographical errors and we corrected them. We reworked of the clarity as well.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lines 124-137, I cannot find the utility of the description of the connectors. I can understand if they affect the aquatic life, in other case it don't include useful information.

The table 7 is confusing, as is presented the total biomass is 163%.

The section 4 is a bit disappointing. In theory, this is a paper about how the communications affect the aquatic life, but this section is quite lacking except some general ideas, it should be extended a bit, in my opinion.

 

Author Response

Comments 1: Lines 124-137, I cannot find the utility of the description of the connectors. I can understand if they affect the aquatic life, in other case it don't include useful information.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, we agree the inclusion of connectors is not significant in regards to the aquatic life. We include them to attest for the costs and material requirements of underwater cabled communication.

Comment 2: The table 7 is confusing, as is presented the total biomass is 163%.

Response 2: Dear reviewer, we acknowledge your suggestion. We corrected the error. We have made modification to the table as to make it readable and coherent. Table 7.

Comments 3: The section 4 is a bit disappointing. In theory, this is a paper about how the communications affect the aquatic life, but this section is quite lacking except some general ideas, it should be extended a bit, in my opinion.

Response 3: Dear reviewer, we acknowledge your concern. We have reworked this section, added more references to give it more relevance and depth, and improved the reading flow.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you authors to including all my suggestions in the new version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have kindly addresses all of my concerns. The paper can now be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As a survey about communications systems in underwater marine environments is correct, and the information and references can be quite useful to researchers who are starting in this field.

The aspect that could be a bit lacking is the part about how they affect aquatic life, I suppose, among other things, that isn't much reliable information today in the literature.