Laser-Based Aid Systems for Berthing and Docking
, Lucjan Gucma 2, Mateusz Bilewski 2, Bartosz Muczynski 2, Franc Dimc 1, Blaž Luin 1, Peter Vidmar 1, Vivien Lorenčič 1 and Milan Batista 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting topic for me. The authors show the readers very meaningful results. Overall, this paper is well organized and written.
However, some modifications may be needed as follows:
- There are 11 keywords. Too many! Please keep 7-8.
- Overall, it’s more like a project report, please modify it to make it more like a journal paper. For example, try to quantify the results shown in Figure 5(a) and Figure 5(b).
- In addition, the writing of this article does not follow the requirements of a Journal article. For example, Line 78 – Figure 1(Left) should be Figure 1(a); Line 78 - Figure 1(Right) should be Figure 1(b);
- Table 4 shows us the parameter for various LIDARs with different parameters, it’s not that important to show them in this paper. Please focus on the comparison of those data from “ship 243 GNSS, pilot navigation system, the worst and best LiDAR”, as mentioned above.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
As always, we thank you for your attentive readings and helpful remarks. The paper has clearly benefitted from your efforts. The revised paper with track-changes is attached. Specific remarks are listed below:
- Reduced
- This has been done, and chapter 3 has been fixed.
- We have corrected this.
- We have retained the table but inserted another that compares results.
Reviewer 2 Report
1-There is plenty of acronyms within this paper
In technical-scientfic papers they have to be explained. In this paper that can be interesting to readers with different skills and backgrounds the explanation of acronyms is even more important. As it could be not pleasant to insert acronym explanation within the text the Reviewer suggest to insert a separate LIST OF ACRONYMS
2- Some figures should be improved.
Figure 4 should need further explanation.
Figure 10 should provide better reading.
3- Symbols in Equation 11 should be explained
4-Conclusions could better highlight the problem of detailed geometrical definition of the involved bodies that is typical when setting up laser measurers
5-English should be improved. A few minor mistakes are listed below
Line 10 change “through” with “in”
Line 11 change “high” with “strong”
Line 28-28 change “;” with “,”
Line 34 add “on” between “as” and “monitoring”
Line 40 delete “other”
Line 53 change “is” with “are”
Line 69 change “handle” with “handle”
Line 70 change “at times” with “sometimes”
Line 97 change “alide” with some appropriate verb at past
Line 100 change “less” with “poor” or other appropriate word
Line 133 change “another” with “further”
Line 143 correct “s”
Line 156 what’s the meaning of “3-d wind”? Specify in more conventional way
Line 193 correct “operator” to “operators”
Line 258 add “,” after “from”
Line 312 Correct “contain” with “contains”
Line 329 delete “a”
Line 347 correct “is” with “are”
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
As always, we thank you for your attentive readings and helpful remarks. The paper has clearly benefitted from your efforts. The revised paper with track-changes is attached. Specific remarks are listed below:
- It is our standard practice to provide the full version the first time an acronym is used. We have been advised by a language expert that the reader who does not know the acronym will find this convenient, and the reader who knows the acronym will not even pause a second upon encountering the words and the parenthetical acronym. A full list is also included.
- Thanks—we did so.
- This has been done.
- This problem is now summarized in the conclusion.
- Thank you. Our language expert accepted many or most of your changes.
Reviewer 3 Report
Very good technically competent paper. It is recommended to make estimates of the economic effect of the implementation of the system.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
As always, we thank you for your attentive readings and helpful remarks. The paper has clearly benefitted from your efforts. The revised paper with track-changes is attached. Specific remarks are listed below:
- Thank you very much, breaf economic consequence inserted in the conclusions.
