Next Article in Journal
Novel Dual-Signal SiO2-COOH@MIPs Electrochemical Sensor for Highly Sensitive Detection of Chloramphenicol in Milk
Previous Article in Journal
Young Novice Drivers’ Cognitive Distraction Detection: Comparing Support Vector Machines and Random Forest Model of Vehicle Control Behavior
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Communications and High-Precision Positioning (CHP2): Hardware Architecture, Implementation, and Validation

Sensors 2023, 23(3), 1343; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23031343
by Hanguang Yu, Andrew Herschfelt *, Shunyao Wu, Sharanya Srinivas, Yang Li, Nunzio Sciammetta, Leslie Smith, Klaus Rueger, Hyunseok Lee, Chaitali Chakrabarti and Daniel W. Bliss
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Sensors 2023, 23(3), 1343; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23031343
Submission received: 21 December 2022 / Revised: 17 January 2023 / Accepted: 19 January 2023 / Published: 25 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Navigation and Positioning)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

For your convenience, we have prepared itemized responses to your suggestions in the attached letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper contains a clear description of communication and high positioning system. For that, authors provided a little experimental campaign to validate a performance of prototype developed.

The SOA is more accurate and the section 2 of manuscript is clear and complete, but the introduction is short without references support. I suggest to add most significative references, used in section 2, to reinforce introduction section.

The section 3 and 4 are clear, but there are not references to support the mathematical treatment. In this manner, the novelty of work can be distiguish from litterature standard processing.

The sections 5 and 6 are more short, in particular the HW section is composed only by figures. 

The experimetal results are not clear, authors proposed a high-precision positioning system but there are not a table to evaluate the system proposed performance.

The conclusion is too short. The comment of results and future development are not accurately discussed.

Author Response

For your convenience, we have prepared itemized responses to your suggestions in the attached letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors followed the suggestions of the reviewers, the work is clearer and more complete.

Back to TopTop