Monte Carlo Simulation with Experimental Research about Underwater Transmission and Imaging of Laser
and Yifan Huang 1,3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper seem to be very intersting and we see lot of very positive initiatives. However, the overall form of the paper has decreased its scientific value and it became now not suitable for publication. The following revisions are necessary for improving the manuscript.
1. The abstract: out of scope and need to be deeply reformulated.
2. The introduction is very poor and the readers cannot understand what the authors have tried to demonstrate. In depth reformulation is necessary with more references.
3. Without comparison with what is reported in the literature what can be the necessity of the section discussion (section 4)?
4. Description of the data and the case study is completely missing which is surprising.
5. The Comparison of image quality reported in table 1 is unclear and need to be deeply improved.
The investigation is not conducted with the necessary scientific rigor and need to be deeply revised before to be resubmitted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
After reading the paper called "Monte Carlo simulation with experimental research about underwater transmission and imaging of laser" I can provide the following feedback. please check.
1. The abstract needs improvement in terms of providing final results and the main contribution.
2. The introduction does not discuss related current studies to see the state of art technologies.
3. Material method is directly going for the proposed method. I expect to see more explanations about Imaging Monte Carlo Simulation.
4. Performance metrics such as SSIM and MSSIM should be explained in the material and method. How do you calculate them?
5. The medium Jerlov â…¡ type water is not defined anywhere in the paper. What are the properties of this medium? why do you pick that medium?
6. Table 1 what is the PSNR unit?
7. Why does MSSIM have a very high similarity like 0.999 whereas SSIM has a similarity between 0.495-0.54? You need to explain that difference.
8. The discussion part also needs a comparison with recent research to see how significant is your research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In the manuscript entitled “Monte Carlo simulation with experimental research about underwater transmission and imaging of laser”, Guo et al. proposed an Imaging Monte Carlo (IMC) method to investigate the effect of channel characteristics on beam transmission and imaging. The IMC method analyzes the reflection process and is optimized in gating reception, and fits with the experimental results. After reading the manuscript, I found it is well-written. Both the experimental data and MC simulations seem convincing. Both the methodology and flowchart are easy to follow. Before recommendation, I would like the authors to address the following concerns listed below.
1) What are the typical statistical uncertainties for the experimental results? Take SSIM in Table 1 for example, I assume it’s on the order of 0.001? Please clarify this.
2) No details for the axes in the pulse sequence of Figure 5. Please at least include the (typical) timings for x-axis so that the readers have a sense how long each pulse takes.
3) If I understand correctly, the simulations were based on an ideal Gaussian beam. However, it’s typically not the case in realistic applications. I wonder how hard would it be to include imperfections (ie. take the beam profile and use it as the input), and how much would this deviate the simulation results from measurements? Whether it’s a concern or not at current accuracy? Could the authors comment on this?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is ready for publication
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper is much better than the previous version. Thank you.
