Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

No clear the contribution of this work. Manuscript writing should be significantly improved. line 79, d_{fd}, s_{fs} are not defined when first introduced. symbol "sigma" in line 100 and line 195. Are they the same parameters? To me, they are different. Simulation result plots are really hard to differentiate the various markers.

Author Response

The authors thank the editors and the reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions on the former submission. The manuscript has now been revised according to the suggestions raised by the reviewers. Please find below all the corresponding replies.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Your Random Nyström Approach is a valuable contribution to the scientific discussion on the area of clutter estimation.

The focus of your paper is on the theoretical derivation of this approach. In simulations, you verified the performance of your approach w.r.t. computational effort and w.r.t. the accuracy of the estimated clutter statistics. Introduction and references indicate your good overview on both, basic literature and recent paper at this area of research. The train of thoughts is well structured and as intelligible as such a mathematically sophisticated topic can be presented. English usage is correct, typos are rare.

However, there is one serious point of critique on your paper: I completely miss any conclusions at the end of your paper. The train of throughs abruptly stops after the simulations section. Because of this incompleteness, the current version of the paper is not ready for publication. It takes a minor revision,  where your add a section named "Conclusions". Please let your readers know in this section:

• What are the lessons learned from your investigations?
• What are still open questions or adequate topics for future research?
• Which applications can profit from your approach?

Beside of this, the following minor typos shall be corrected:

p. 1, l. 34: "ex-ample" -> "example"

p. 2, l. 60: "we proposed" -> "we propose" (as in this section you are still at the begin of your paper)

p. 10, l. 307-309: "The reason is (…) a partially polarized wave." The sentence is hardly understandable because of its overlength and its too complex syntax. Please rephrase this train of thoughts. Use several sentences. Each sentence shall provide only one thought.

Author Response

The authors thank the editors and the reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions on the
former submission. The manuscript has now been revised according to the suggestions raised by the
reviewers. Please find below all the corresponding replies.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The comments have been addressed.