Estimating Interference with a Two-Dimensional Viterbi Algorithm for Bit-Patterned Media Recording

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer’s Recommendation

This manuscript needs major revisions.

 

Summary

The manuscript presents a model of interference estimation for Bit-Patterned Media Recording

 

General comments

This manuscript exhibits something that could be possibly used under real conditions but the overall presentation lacks validity i.e. explanation with simple words, valid theoretical experiments, and proper statistical analysis. Nevertheless, as I see some potentiality into this work I hope the authors revise properly the manuscript and rearrange their structure in order to better show the possible innovation.

 

Suggested Improvements

In addition to the previously mentioned, please apply the following suggestions, and import the answers inside the revised manuscript:

 

1. Equations (1) and (2) need elaboration and explanations.
2. Again up to equation (15) you should give a target on your research. What and where can these be applied under real conditions.
3. Simulation and results need to be revised thoroughly in order to give to the reader in a simple manner the innovation along with the appropriate discussion.
4. Please elaborate on 0.465 Tb/cm2 and how you concluded this value.
5. The conclusion is inadequate. This must be enriched and highlight the real innovation.
6. The bibliography is poor.
7. Where are valid examples of existing magnetic data storage that can be compared to real products? Please revise in order to see the real usefulness.

 

Manuscript Rating:

1. This manuscript needs major revisions.

A future implementation should be definitely conducted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

There are a few issues that need to be solved:

• please revise English ( for example ”we proposed” instead of ”we propose” in the conclusion part)
• the introduction part should be further developed
• the picture should appear only after it is mentioned in the text  
• figure 7 is not mentioned in the text
• maybe a table should be made for a clearer view of the obtained results
• the conclusion part should be further developed, maybe future work ideas should be mentioned

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is scientifically sound, with clear modeling and illustration. Before publishable, the authors have to enhance the introduction and literature survey, to highlight the impact and motivation of this paper, e.g., what limitation is in the existed work, and how the authors solve it in this paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have responded to all my comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have improved the paper.