A New Hybrid Positioning Method by Fusion of BDS and 5G Signal Using the Particle Swarm Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1- I think the title is misleading. It would be good to replace it for this reason. For example: "A new hybrid positioning method by fusion of Beidou and 5G signals using particle swarm method".

2- The method used should first be outlined and summarized with a figure. If possible, the steps should be drawn in block diagrams and the proposed method should be given as a flow.

3- Beidu and 5g should be explained in more detail for new readers.

4- What is the difference from existing methods? What scientific contribution was made? What is indoor or outdoor innovation? more precise? is it more accurate? Please review the following publications and talk about their merits. First of all, this situation should be examined in the introduction part and the contribution should be emphasized, then in the discussion part how much this has happened should be presented.

https://doi.org/10.3390/s22176629

https://doi.org/10.3390/app9183665

https://doi.org/10.1109/UBMK50275.2020.9219475

https://doi.org/10.3390/app12115565

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. We have revised the article according to your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors introduce the Beidou +5g fusion method based on multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm. Using this technique, they improve the positioning accuracy and convergence time of the system, and make real-time settlement of the target position in complex environment. On comparing the proposed technique with the traditional Kalman fusion filter algorithm, it is found that the convergence time is improved by 24.8%, whereas the positioning accuracy of the algorithm is improved by 18.9%. Further, when the same method is compared with the single Beidou Positioning environment, an improvement of 50-80% is seen in positioning accuracy. The paper is interesting and should be considered.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. We have revised the article according to your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors present an improvement to the positioning via Beidou by using 5G signals. In my opinion, the paper is not well written, especially the method description and the theoretical background. Nevertheless, I do not propose to reject the paper, since the results looks promising. However, the paper needs substantial polishing.

GENERAL REMARKS:

1. Citations are completely a mess. For instance, in line 53 there is a reference to a citation "Bai l et al. Studied ..nces." instead of "Bai L. et al. studied ...". And there are at least 10 similar typos of the same kind. In line 67 John Wiley & Sons (the publishing house) is attributed credits for a proposition of an algorithm.

2. The paragraph after the equation always begins with an upper case, although in most cases it is only a continuation of the sentence above the equation (eg. line 118).

3. Abbreviations are not consistently used in capitalized form (eg. toa instead of TOA).

4. Not all the abbreviations are defined at their introduction in the text (eg. PDOP, probably Position Dilution of Precision).

SPECIFIC REMARKS:

1. Lines 110-121: The text accompanying equation 1 is not clear enough, although some content can be excerpted from the context.

2. Equation 2: The reuse of x_i in eq. 2 is confusing with respect to their previous meaning in eq. 1. A better approach is used in eq. 5, where both are distinguished with x_si for satellites and x_bi for base stations.

3. Lines 128-130: Although \Delta t_k can be deduced from the context, its description is not adequated.

4. Lines 132-138: The text is very unclear and hard to read.

5. Equation 6: I can only guess, whether you tried to define F as the minimum of all f_i or something else. However, from its description I am unable to deduce it.

6. Figure 3: The figures b and c are not complete - there are missing units (eg. Convergent time (s)). I suggest to skip "unit" in "unit m" and replace it with only "m".

7. Lines 241-251: I miss the concrete locations. For instance, an "urban canyon" in a small town would probably give different results than an urban canyon in a big city with probably higher obstacles.

8. Conclusion or Results sections: It is well known that phase solutions (GNSS position calculations using carrier wave phase) can give significantly better accuracy than code solutions. I miss a short analysis of what is the benefit of the proposed method over the phase enabled receivers (perhaps price?).

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. We have revised the article according to your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors submitted the response but there is no highligted version of revision. Please request the highligted revision. 

 

 (will not be revealed to authors)

1- I think the title is misleading. It would be good to replace it for this reason. For example: "A new hybrid positioning method by fusion of Beidou and 5G signals using particle swarm method".

 

2- The method used should first be outlined and summarized with a figure. If possible, the steps should be drawn in block diagrams and the proposed method should be given as a flow.

 

3- Beidu and 5g should be explained in more detail for new readers.

 

4- What is the difference from existing methods? What scientific contribution was made? What is indoor or outdoor innovation? more precise? is it more accurate? Please review the following publications and talk about their merits. First of all, this situation should be examined in the introduction part and the contribution should be emphasized, then in the discussion part how much this has happened should be presented.

 

https://doi.org/10.3390/s22176629

 

https://doi.org/10.3390/app9183665

 

https://doi.org/10.1109/UBMK50275.2020.9219475

https://doi.org/10.3390/app12115565

Author Response

We are very sorry that we did not upload the marked manuscript due to our negligence, we have marked the revised part in blue, and we look forward to your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Revision is sufficient. Paper can be accepted in present form.