Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the comments in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article describes the application of Fresnel lenses in the field of underwater optical communication, but the paper has the following issues:
The abstract section is too simple and should focus on describing the results and conclusions
The two authors only describe the working principle of the Fresnel lens from the perspective of geometric optics, and their theoretical calculations are not combined with underwater environments and optical communication backgrounds. And the actual transmission process should be more in line with diffraction characteristics.
3. The experiment should strengthen the comparison with the results of traditional convex lens experiments, such as the improvement of focusing characteristics and the suppression of atmospheric turbulence performance?
Are the 4 Fresnel lenses designed for self processing or are they using existing commercial products? If it is self-designed, the core parameters should be provided. If it is an existing product, the product model should be provided.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my previous comments have been resolved.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made modifications as required and agreed to publish

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The study fails to demonstrate significant innovation. The authors must clarify the unique contributions of their study in the introduction and discussion sections.
2. Lack of sufficient literature review.
3. A lot of formatting and language issues, such as figures include labels written in Chinese.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please refer to the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Fresnel lenses have been widely used in previous underwater wireless optical communication systems.  I recommend rejection based on lack of sufficient innovation to underwater optical communication research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all of my concerns. I recommend acceptance in its current form.