Validity of the AdMos, Advanced Sport Instruments, GNSS Sensor for Use in Alpine Skiing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you to the authors for addressing the comments from the first review round.  In general I find the version submitted to be substantially improved.  I would still suggest that the authors revise the manuscript for language/grammar.  There are a number of instances in the manuscript where a sentence ends with an abbreviation, and the next sentence begins with the same parameter - unabbreviated.

Author Response

Thank you for the compliments. We send the manuscript for a second grammar check. We had it revised by a professional before submission but asked for a second assessment.

We have also tried to be more consistent on the use of abbreviations throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the paper is much better than the previous version. The paper can be published in this journal.

Author Response

Thank you for acceptance of the revisions. We run a final language check by a professional and turn the manuscript in.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have tried to revise the manuscript and I really appreciate it. Some of my concerns were addressed, however the most important were not or were left without an answer. I still believe that this paper does not fit the scope of the journal. Many of my previous comments were just a consequence of the journal selection.

The authors frequently support their responses with a statement that selected issues are not crucial "from a geodesist point of view" but "from a sport application point of view". So maybe, according to your claim, sport-related journals would be a better choice? 

Author Response

Thank you for your responses. In Norway we sometimes say that we agree on that we do not agree, which might be the case here.

 

• We have seen a tradition of usage of non – valid methods to validate GNSS in sport science literature, where sport scientists have reviewed sport scientists letting substantial shortcomings go undetected, which lead to research bias. We therefore believe that we need to confront the sport science community with the opinion of geodesy professionals to rise the bar in the sport science community, since GNSS has become one of the more wide-spread tools applied in sports.
• Sport technology is one of the quickest growing markets and GNSS is a central component in many applications and maybe just an example of the expansion of GNSS in many non-traditional applications that come with special characteristics and needs. We therefore believe that the scope of geodesy might be extended as well.

Reviewer 4 Report

The research work is well conceived and the tests properly performed.

The presentation of results is sometimes a wordy and over redundant. I would have preferred the discussion integrated in the results section to avoid some repetition when possible. For instance, Figure 5 and Figure 6 help understanding the general behaviour of the position coordinates and can be useful in the section 3.1 together with Figure 1 and tables.

It would be nice in future to assess the benefits of a data fusion of GNSS and IMU data with proper filtering in the test context and using the same device, in particular if the aim is to use the AdMos sensor also to analyse the accelerations.

Typo at line 97 “..the the AdMos…”

Author Response

Thank you for your responses. We have gone through the results section and have further cut down on the wording and let the tables talk to larger extent for their own.

We agree that combining result and discussion has some advantages, but we were not aware from the author guidelines that this is an option for this journal. To our understanding the guidelines do not indicate that merging results and discussion is allowed, hence we would leave it as is.

 

It would be nice in future to assess the benefits of a data fusion of GNSS and IMU data with proper filtering in the test context and using the same device, in particular if the aim is to use the AdMos sensor also to analyse the accelerations. To our understanding a IMU of higher quality is needed than what is included in the ADMOS to really make use of the IMU data to feed into a INS, but we agree that INS is, given the right level of IMU sensor, the next step to be done on a larger scale of GNSS applications.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have provided a kind rebuttal letter, but the answers do not address my concerns. I really believe that my comments are still valid and I really believe that it would be better for the authors' scientific reputation to follow them. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for sharing your concern. When we chose to submit to remote sensing, we based our decision on the scope of the journal and on the fact that a similar study was published in remote sensing earlier.

Aims and scope: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing/about

Similar study: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/8/8/671/htm

Based on this information we considered remote sensing being suitable for our manuscript.