Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)-Based Evaluation of Extremely-Low-Frequency Magnetic Field Contribution Rates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is very confused. You talk about a rate assessment but this is not defined. You talk about a model that was developed but it is not clear what is his purpose. The simulations presents some values of magnetic field that are not linked with a specific type of submarine and no correlation with the values imposed by the standards. Why to simulate them? Is there any correlation with the developed model? No comparison with other models. Only a few references.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Very hard to understand the manuscript. Too long phrases. Words that are not used properly. Different ideas in the same phrase without a clear connection.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

comments in attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

comments in attached file

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses a rate assessment method based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process model. The paper contributes to the field of the increasingly complex maritime strategic environment. The paper is interesting to be published in Applied Sciences. Nonetheless, I suggest the authors to perform the following improvements:

1. To expand the provided state of the art. The introduction section includes only 12 references, which is insufficient for a high-quality paper.

2. Because of the lack of a solid state-of-the-art, the discussion section (that is missing) does not show the connection between the obtained results and the contribution to advance the aforementioned state-of-the-art.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English errors should be corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The requested definitions have been added in the introduction. Despite grammar correction have been done in the text, it remains difficult to read. For example, the sentence on lines 71-73 is almost identical to the one in the previous version (where it appeared on lines 68-70), despite the reviewer's request specifically to rewrite it. Similarly, the text still contains some of the lengthy sentences previously mentioned.

The authors claim that pages 3 and 4 contain some of the concept clarifications requested by the reviewer; however, the content of the text marked in red is nearly identical to the corresponding text in the previous version. Same with content in pages 6 to 7.

Some of the reviewer's concerns have been addressed, such as those regarding weight vectors, detection point locations, and the definition of lambda. However, other concerns appear to have been omitted, including the data on ocean noise measurement, the representation of signals in the frequency domain (where it is unclear from sentences 401-407 how certain data have been extracted), examples of the feature matrix or results of the consistency test.

Additionally, the error pointing to a missing reference is still present (line 432 in this version).

Again, the paper stands for “assessing the contribution rates of ELF electromagnetic fields” however only magnetic field is considered.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The issue is not with the English language itself but with the long sentences and the way the information is presented.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have properly addressed the reviewer main concerns. There is just one small remaining issue with the length of a sentences. This is found in lines 107 to 110 of the first submitted version:

“Analysis of the causes and threats of the ELF electromagnetic fields of submarines is crucial for the research, as analyzing the causes of the electromagnetic fields allows us to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their origins and composition, which is vital for the subsequent establishment of the model and the design of the evaluation methods.”

which corresponds to the same lines in the last reviewed version (112-115):

“An analysis of the causes and threats of the ELF magnetic fields of submarines is crucial for the research, as analyzing the causes of the magnetic fields allows us to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their origins and composition, which is vital for the subsequent establishment of the model and the design of the evaluation methods”

Both versions contain almost the same sentence that is four lines long.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No further issues.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
First and foremost, we would like to express our heartfelt gratitude for the thorough review of our manuscript. Your insightful comments and suggestions have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our paper. We greatly appreciate your feedback at each stage and have diligently addressed the issues you have raised.
We are pleased to inform you that we have properly addressed your main concerns. Specifically, regarding the issue of sentence length that you highlighted, we have paid particular attention to the original lines 107 to 110 (and the corresponding lines 112 to 115 in the revised version) where a lengthy sentence was identified. We have restructured this sentence to make it more concise and clear. The revised sentence is as follows:
"An analysis of the causes and threats of submarines' ELF magnetic fields is crucial for research. Analyzing the causes of these magnetic fields provides a comprehensive understanding of their origins and composition. This understanding is vital for establishing a model. It is also essential for designing evaluation methods."
We believe that this revision better aligns with the overall style of the paper and enhances its readability. Once again, thank you for your assistance and support. We look forward to your further guidance and comments on the revised manuscript.
Sincerely,
Hongyu Fu