Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript described a pole-zero cancellation and unfolding method that can be implemented on the FPGA. 

While the method and design are sound, the manuscript is lacking the implementation details of the FPGA design. 

1, It is not clear if the method has been tested on any specific FPGA hardware. This is important to demonstrate the capability of the design. Please revise and include the vendor and the model of the FPGA development board. 

2, The speed and resource usage of the FPGA implementation is completely lacking. Understanding the speed and the resource constraints are crucial in understanding the practical aspect of the design. 

3, What are the design choices of the system? How many number of bits are used for the data? 

4, The explanation of the number representation is not sufficient. The word "quantization" should not be used to convert the floating point number to a fixed point number. Details are missing in choosing the data format. In addition, the impact of such choices on the application should be discussed. 

5, The sampling frequency should be discussed, with different event rates. Its implication on the design should also be elaborated. 

6, Accumulator Correction (2.3.2) section should be better explained. Wording should focus on the effect than the mathematical description of "subtracting a negative value". 

7, The conclusion section is missing

8, The discussion section should be expanded.

9, The unit on the Y-axis in Figure 17 is missing. 

10, typo in Line 418, page 13

11, grammar error: line 327, page 10

12, Use math font for any in-line text of the variables. 

13, The word "however" is misused in many places. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded to the majority of my suggestions. A few small observations:

- line 118 - Section ??

- The conclusions section is too short and generic, does not highlight the work done. It should be more customized to the specific context.

 

As a final observation, for future articles, in the cover letter put also the line in the text where you made the modifications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf