Critical Collision Risk Index Based on the Field Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

 The paper is very well structured. The content and theme of the article is consistent with the lines of the journal and the topic is of interest to the readers.

 However, the paper has some inconsistent compering to the instructors for the authors, which should be corrected:

 •              The Abstract contain less than 200 words. This is Ok.

•              The Abstract contain main obligatory elements (according to the instruction to the authors): Background of the research, Methods; Results; Conclusion).

•              Abbreviation should not be used in Abstract (e.g. in abstract DCPA; TCPA; RTCPA…). Authors should replace them with full meaning.

•              List of Keywords is appropriate.

•              The paper well nominate 26 references, without unnecessary self-citations. This is Ok.

•              The paper do not contain all main obligatory chapters (Introduction; Results; Discussion: Materials and Methods). Results chapter should be added or Discussion chapter should include all-important elements from Results chapter (see Instruction for authors).

•              After every chapter name (title) should be some entrance sentence. It is not appropriate to have chapter title follow with chapter subtitle (see chapter title 2 which is followed directly with subtitle 2.1 without any description between them or 2.2 with 2.2.1)

•              The paper’s text is out of margin (row 83 to 93; 123 to 125; 167; etc.)

•              The authors should carefully correct font within the text of the article (e.g. chapter names should have same font – authors use different font for title of chapter 1 in computation to titles for other chapters). Similar problem is with name of the figures (all should be same font in accordance with instructions for the authors) as well as titles of the tables.

•              Bold should be used wisely. E.g. in rows 409 to 411 should be use in same principle (e.g. “not applicable” should be or always bold or always not bold)

•              In the paper is often used term “study” which should be changed with word “paper” (e.g. row 12; 109; 208; etc.) because authors in the paper present results of the study.

Author Response

Please kindly check the file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The approach employed in the paper is quite interesting and shows a robust scientific soundness

Surely it is a possible basis for very interesting future development, for this reason it would be useful to add a

small section suggesting future lines of research. Furthermore the specific target audience should be specified ,

since the topics are a bit sophisticated and cannot be translated immediately into real calculation by all

audience. Does the proposed approach have real time performances?

Please clarify more how the paper can be employed to generate the optimal collision avoidance strategy with

a safe a reliable routes?

Please describe a bit more formal basis concerning the similarity between gravitational field and collision field

Also highlight the use of fuzzy inference for calculation of weights in relation to generalized CRI

Generally speaking dimensionality of each parameter, index, etc. should be specified, a possible difficulty to

reading is the number of abbreviations that has been use, a glossary might be useful

One point to be discussed is the meaning of TCPA less than zero

In relation to Table 2 it would be useful to provide some detail about the steps for its calculation and generally

speaking a example the actual calculation procedure for identification and assessment of collision risk (based

on the procedure proposed in the paper)

As noted in detailed comments equation references are often missing.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please kindly check the file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx