Methods for Underwater Gravity Measurement Error Compensations Based on Correlation Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Referee Report: applsci-1919464

 The manuscript entitled with ``Method for Underwater Gravity Measurement Error-Compensation Based on Correlation Analysis’’ is an interesting experimental exposition with thoroughly done statistical analysis and well-written work.

 

However, I have the following three points as suggestions to be considered by the authors:

1)     A Section on the Comparative study on the results of the previous works and the presented work seems essential.

2)     The Sections 4 and 5 should be merged into one as ``Discussion and Conclusion’’.  

3)     Grammatically the word `Where’ after Eqs. (2) and (3) are wrong, which should be written as

`where’ with a `comma’ after every Eq., i.e.,

 

????????? −??1 = … , (2)

where…

 

 

Similarly, for Eq. (3) also…

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper touches upon an important issue within Method for Underwater Gravity Measurement. In this time of global mutation and climate change, this paper raised the question of   gravimetric errors caused by the poor dynamics of the carrier.

 

 The experimental data used by author’s show that this method can effectively compensate for the gravimetric errors caused by the carrier dynamics, and provide the theoretical basis and algorithm model for underwater gravimetry in the bottom- tracking mode.

 The analytical framework and the theoretical scheme are absent, this have to be done. I suggest to create to rephrase the discussion and conclusion section.

Before providing detailed comments to the specific sections, I have some general suggestions to strengthen the analytical consistency.

Overall comment

The authors need to reframe, the discussion and conclusion section. The manuscript need an English edition. This discussion section have to rise weak side of this study. 

Detailed comment

line  23 : author can add 2 more keywords

line 26: define the carrier. what type?

line 48:  I propose to add the plan of the article here

formula 1:  not reference in the text

in the method please locate the experimental site or zone

the table 1 can be delete.,

Discussion (line 194) : the discussion section have to be ameliorate. no reference is done, we cannot see any comparison or criticism of the result

conclusion: rephrase the conclusion, it is not complete.

All remarks and comments are in the manuscript.

 

 Hope these comments are helpful to improve the manuscript for submission Applied Sciences

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx