Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall interesting article but needs revisions before becoming a good journal paper.

line 15: This sentence could use some rewriting.

line 43: "algorithm" should be "algorithms"

Fig. 3 caption: please write a more detailed description

line 165: Is it  +- 1.83m? The figure shows only sidewall only on -1.83m

Fig. 4: Please give a more detailed description of what you are plotting

Section 4.2 and Fig.5: what do you mean "real" dataset? It's experimental...

This would imply that the simulated results are "fake"?

Fig. 5: can you show us a photograph of the experimental system and configuration? This is very important for the reader

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1)    It would be useful collecting all the acronyms in a given table for readers’ convenience.

2)    Sec. 2 – I would like the authors to clarify whether the considered techniques is restricted/limited to the ULA assumption.

3)    Please add a paper organization paragraph at the end of Sec. I.

4)    The following closely-related works on imaging techniques via time-reversal techniques have been missed by the authors:

"Through-the-wall target localization with time reversal music method." Progress In Electromagnetics Research 106 (2010): 75-89.

"Performance analysis of time-reversal MUSIC." IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 63.10 (2015): 2650-2662.

5)    The authors should discuss/evaluate the computational complexity involved in the considered BCS approach.

6)    The authors should compare with the complexity of BOMP, BSBL and overlapping GSL as well.


7)    Sec. 4 – Please collect all the parameters concurring to describe the considered simulation setup in a given table for readers’ convenience.

8)    Sec. 4.2 – It Is not clear to me whether the real data used for experimentation is (will be) made publicly available for reproducibility and further experimentations.


9)    Conclusion section should be rewritten aiming at (i) better highlighting take home messages and (ii) underlining future research directions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have satisfactorily addressed my previous comments