An Efficient GNSS Coordinate Recognition Algorithm for Epidemic Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

After reading the work one has a feeling of confusion. In general, there are very many general statements. This applies to the research objectives and conclusions of the publication. There is a lack of logical explanation between chapters. The research aspect should be better explained. I do not understand the proposed approach. Or all the information is missing. In lines 35-38 and 62-68, the purpose of the study is presented, which is vague and too general. This causes the reader to be unable to properly understand the research objective. Since we have GNSS-determined geographic coordinates for a single target, it is natural that we can determine whether the target is in a particular area. This can be obtained by comparing a range of coordinates. Similarly, Figure 1 contributes practically nothing that is too general. It should be elaborated by describing the various elements (e.g., what is coordinate recognition?).
It is very difficult to find scientific aspects in the description provided. Chapter 3 should be called differently because it does not show the architecture of the system. The mechanism presented is very obvious. The reader's perception is that elements of innovation are missing. In the next chapter describing the coordinate recognition algorithm, a logical scheme of the procedure is needed. The parts of the algorithm itself can be presented as an appendix. The very name of the chapter is awkward. How can coordinates be recognized if they are known?
The adopted structure of the manuscript causes jumps between issues and builds the impression of incomplete information.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your professional advice.

Please see the attachment.

It may be that the English of this paper is poorly expressed, I think you may have misunderstood this research. Regarding what you proposed, the revised paper should be improved a lot.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The PtINPy, RectPtnToSquare, CoordRecongnit, etc are old issues and now have advanced in most GIS software with faster algorithms than the one described here.

2. The application for epidemic management does not reflect the significance of this algorithm for such a purpose.

3. The proposed algorithm is mainly based on old references thus implying that there is nothing new to the problem statement. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your professional advice.

Please see the attachment.

It may be that the English of this paper is poorly expressed, I think you may have misunderstood this research. Regarding what you proposed, the revised paper should be improved a lot.

We have revised your suggestion in the paper. And it is done by the organization of professional English Editing.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors present a GNSS-coordinate recognition algorithm to manage epidemics. It's unclear to me how such an algorithm could help manage a crisis like an epidemic. Could the authors elaborate on this? I feel that there would be much better applications for such an algorithm.

lines 453-457: What does figure 8(a) actually present? the distribution of residents per kilometer by the village in 2019 or the distribution of targeted 456 points, which contains 10000 points randomly selected from all targeted points.

line 479: unclear sentence "The results can reveal these cities' hot points and hot areas". 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your professional advice.

Please see the attachment.
We have revised your suggestion in the paper. And it is done by the organization of professional English Editing.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The article by Chen et al. is certainly of interest for the protection of populations. I did not detect anything wrong with the algorithms themselves.

It is, however, filled with poorly structured and sometimes disorganized information, which is not improved by a poor command of English from place to place.

I recommend an in-depth rewriting of the paper following my very numerous handwritten notes, that are attached, and a check before resubmission by a native speaker.

In particular, the discussion section is incomprehensible.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your professional suggestion, we have revised your suggestion in the paper. And it is done by the organization of professional English Editing.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I want to thank the authors for their comprehensive explanations and for considering the comments. The work may be published. I still suggest including a single diagram that outlines the entire algorithm of the procedure and the logic of the adopted research process. Of course, this is not mandatory. In my opinion, it would facilitate the interpretation of the entire work. I wish you the best of luck in your future research endeavours.

Author Response

Thanks. We take the suggestion very seriously. We would prefer that this paper be published in this journal. The red part of the paper is the newly added content.

Reviewer 2 Report

In the abstract, the last sentence stated: This algorithm can efficiently recognize a large number of targets within a targeted area, which can be used to assist in epidemic management.
The following should be considered

a. improvement to the current algorithms of recognizing a large number of targets are not discussed in detail. A comparison and improvement to the current algorithms should be done to show the novelty.

b. GNSS is just a positioning tool and the proposed algorithm is not tied to GNSS positioning alone, thus the title can be confusing. 
c. The main novelty of this algorithm is the dynamic blocking or real-time setting of "range" (I am not sure whether the terminology "range" and "target" is rightly used throughout the paper). The example used to validate the algorithm should show the mathematical derivation similar to what transpired in Figure 2 for "dynamic point status" and Figure 6 for the partitioning of targets. This will allow readers to understand the way real-time changing targets are handled.

Author Response

Thanks. We take the suggestion very seriously. We would prefer that this paper be published in this journal. The red part of the paper is the newly added content.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

 

Dear authors,

 

Now, I can understand your article because it is better structured and the English has been professionally edited. My remaining complaint is about novelty compared to other GIS methods. Could you argue on this point? This is a key point and you NEED to discuss it in depth.

 

Author Response

Thanks. We take the suggestion very seriously. We would prefer that this paper be published in this journal. The red part of the paper is the newly added content.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a much-improved version. Although there are some differences in approaches from other journal papers, the objective has been achieved.