Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper describes an interesting fusion algorithm based on two other algorithms such as the 3D Vector Field Histogram Plus (VFH+) algorithm and the improved Dynamic Window Approach (DWA) algorithm. The method is used to of cooperative obstacle avoidance faced by multi-UAV formation flying in unknown environmen. The proposed algorithm is an original solution to the problem of guiding drones along a trajectory in an unknown environment. Presented by authors simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach in multi-aircraft formation obstacle avoidance path planning. The paper meets the requirements for scientific publications.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thanks very much for your time to review this manuscript.We really appreciate you’re your comments and suggestions. Thank you for your approval of the paper.

yours sincerely.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a fusion algorithm that combines the 3D Vector Field Histogram Plus (VFH+) algorithm and the improved Dynamic Window Approach (DWA) algorithm. Although the obtained results are interesting, I regret to inform you that the paper cannot be published in its current version. Here are several suggestions for improvement:

1.        The first contribution mentioned in the paper is not clearly highlighted or explained. It is crucial to explicitly state and emphasize the contributions of the proposed fusion algorithm to help readers understand the novelty and significance of the work.

2.        The simulation presented in the paper appears to be too simple, which limits the ability to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed method. To provide a comprehensive assessment, it is recommended to include more diverse and challenging simulation scenarios or consider conducting real-world experiments to demonstrate the performance and efficacy of the fusion algorithm.

3.        Ensure that all figures are positioned in the middle of the paper for better organization and readability. This will facilitate a clear and coherent understanding of the presented results and analysis.

4.        Pay close attention to the clarity of all figures in the simulation. It is important to ensure that all figures are clearly readable, providing sufficient details for readers to comprehend the information being conveyed.

5.        The main part of the paper should not include Chinese characters. It is essential to ensure that the entire manuscript is written in English to ensure broader accessibility and understanding for readers.

6.        The references cited in the paper are relatively outdated. To strengthen the scientific foundation of the work, it is necessary to include more recent publications within the past three years. This will demonstrate the authors' familiarity with the latest advancements in the field and provide readers with up-to-date references for further exploration.

7.        The paper contains grammatical errors and issues with English tense usage. The authors should diligently address these language-related problems to improve the overall clarity and coherence of the manuscript.

8.        It is crucial for the authors to approach the paper with a more serious and meticulous attitude. Demonstrating a rigorous approach and attention to detail will significantly enhance the quality and suitability of the paper for publication.

Taking these suggestions into consideration and making the necessary revisions will improve the overall quality and increase the chances of acceptance for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer
Thanks very much for your time to review this manuscript. We really appreciate you’re your comments and suggestions. We have considered these comments carefully and tried our best to address every one of them. See the uploaded attachment for detailed reply.

Yours sincerely

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-written and beautifully organized. The subject area is also very interesting, which I am sure will catch the readers' attention. However, authors should pay attention to the following points to make this article suitable for publication.

- I did not find a specific literature review in this article. The authors should discuss some relevant literature from the past on this topic. However, the authors have discussed methods which I believe are insufficient. If possible, authors should compare their work with relevant available research work.

- Authors must provide simulation setups. They should also include a variable/parameter table to develop an understanding of the simulation results.

- A discussion section should also be included to describe the results more comprehensively. Also, identify the weakness which needs to be addressed for improvement in future work.

- Authors should check the format of the journal. Abbreviations are usually written in lowercase here if I'm not mistaken. For example, Dynamic Window Approach (DWA) should be written as dynamic window approach (DWA).

-Authors should explain the Chinese words on page 14, line 314.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-Proofreading is required to check spelling and grammatical mistakes.

Author Response

Dear reviewer
Thanks very much for your time to review this manuscript. We really appreciate you’re your comments and suggestions. We have considered these comments carefully and tried our best to address every one of them. See the uploaded attachment for detailed reply.

Yours sincerely.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A majority of my comments have been addressed, allowing the article to be accepted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is of sufficient standard.