Performance Enhancement Scheme for RSE-Based Underwater Optical Camera Communication Using De-Bubble Algorithm and Binary Fringe Correction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• Excellent abstract. Very pithy. Broadest possible terminology.  Includes results, but not in broad terminology (i.e. the reader doesn’t know if 7.2 Kbit/s is good or bad). The reviewer recommends establishing a baseline performance (e.g. [Liang], or [Akram]), and then using a figure of merit (e.g. % mean improvement, standard deviation, etc.) that is ubiquitously understandable by the readership to declare results of experiments.  This broad terminology is most appropriate for “book-end” sections of the manuscripts, like Abstract and Conclusions.
• Introduction has good use of references with sufficient, pithy verbiage describing the relevant content or use of the references.
• Ubiquitous use of high-resolution image sensors amplifies the applicability of the proposed advancements.
• Assertions of lines 38-39 could be more effectively stated if the authors indicated to the readers whether or not such data rates at such distance is deemed sufficiently effective.
• Line 40 is unclear. “in what way”?
• Please augment line 42 (using the updates to lines 38-39) to instruct the reader how much improvement (if any) is needed or desired, thus motivating reading the manuscript further.
• What was learned in [15-17]? Please augment lines 51-54 to illuminate with at least some rudimentary verbiage to explain to the reader what to expect in the cited reference (more strongly, give the reader a reason to seek the cited reference).
• Please re-define rolling shutter effect in line 59 to prevent the reader from having to flip back through the pages seeking the definition (one instance of redefinition on each page used is advisable to not begrudge the reader).
• Please give a broad definition of sampling point offset including its causes and effects on line 59.
• Please give examples of various noises in lines 63-64.
• Lines 71-72 contain a very succinct statement of the proposed developments of the manuscript.
• In lines 77-78, please tell the reader some figure of merit for effectiveness, so the reader can discern whether a data rate of 7.2Kbit/s is sufficient or perhaps outstanding.
• Section 2 is particularly strongly written with effective integration of graphics and verbiage.
• Section 3.1 is too laden with acronyms. Please consider improving the verbiage concentrating on clarity to readers who don’t already possess the expertise of the authors. When you make this improvement, please reference figure 4 to define terms and acronyms in the same improved verbiage. Be sure to add the units of resolution measurements.
• Lines 176-190 are strongly written. In line 185, remind the reader the definition of K.
• In lines 193-202 please re-define acronyms (e.g. CMOS, RSE, UOCC, SPO, BFC, BER…) to preclude the necessity of the reader to flip back to earlier pages seeking a reminder of the definition and improving the flow of this paragraph. Please similarly improve section 3.2.1 (e.g. PD, UWOC, RSE, OOK, ISO) in a manner that isn’t terribly repetitive with improved lines 193-202.
• Figure 7 transmits very little meaning, since the abscissa and ordinate text size are illegible.
• Paragraph 3.2.2 is strongly written with effective reference to graphics. Please know that text in figure 8 is essentially illegible due to smallness of font size.  As a general rule of thumb for graphics in this template notice the figure caption (in the prescribed template) is the smallest font in the manuscript, so graphics containing font sizes smaller than the caption are often potentially too small (and using the caption as guidance provides a convenient local prototype for sizing text sizes inside figures).  
• In line 245, the variable K is bold-italicized seemingly distinguishing it from early instantiations. Please be consistent to increase clarity.
• While the meanings may be clear to the reader by this point, lines 286-287 make the reader choke a bit on acronyms, “… BFC method and recovering the data logic, the 286 BER performances of RSE-based UOCC under…”, and subsequent lines in the same paragraph don’t help. Please examine paragraph 3.4 with a goal of (easy) clarity for the reader.  Perhaps the reminder of baud rates would be more clearly expressed as an equation (??)…merely a potential suggestion from the reviewer.
• More instances of bold-italics K appear in 3.4.1 in addition to other non-obvious font enhancements (e.g. 10^6 and 10^-6 are bolded for some reason). A reminder of the definition of K would prove useful after passage of so much material since the reader learned of the nomenclature.
• The seemingly wonderful data plotted in figure 12 & 13 relay little-to- no information due to small font sizes. The reviewer zoomed several times in the computer displayed document, but printed copies of this manuscript will render these figures useless.
• Lines 335-336 contain a sentence that is clearly not worded with efforts to make reading easy, “…RES-based UOCC system and the UOCC or land-OCC systems pro-335 posed…”
• Strongly written conclusions (with appearance of seemingly phantom bold fonts). Please elaborate the “FEC limit” and the units of 3.8x10^-3 and augment the expression of 7.2 Kbit/s with a qualitative assessment of “what’s good enough”, so the reader has the authors’ conclusions in the broadest possibly worded verbiage.
• Although considerable verbiage is taken from other references, the reviewer deems the manuscript a work of novel research and congratulates the authors. 恭喜恭喜你们.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well-written and sound. I think the topic is relevant and interesting. However, before the acceptance, I would suggest some changes.

• The state of the art should be discussed more deeply. Now, some lines in the Introdution show the pending problems, but I feel theses discussions should larger and identify what challenges are you addressing with your contribution
• Methodology must be described. Before Section 3, the global methodology for this study must be discussed: hypotheses, research questions, HW platform for data processing, validity threats, etc.
• Results must be discussed to show how they prove, or not, the hypotheses.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf