Transmit Beam Control in Low-Altitude Slow-Moving Small Targets Detection Based on Peak to Average Power Ratio Constraint
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments to the Authors,
Recommendation: Reconsider after major revision (control missing in some experiments)
This paper sheds light on transmit beam control in low‐altitude slow‐moving small targets detection, which is an interesting and meaningful topic. Authors proposes a transmit beam control algorithm for phased array radar to minimize the strong interference from ground radiation. Authors also introduced the Peak to Average Power Ratio (PAPR) constraint to make full use of the emission energy and verified the simulated results. The paper is organized. However, I have the following concerns:
1. First of all, change the title of the manuscript because with the same title a conference article “Xu, C., Jin, S., Ding, Z., Kuang, Q., Zhuang, S., & Li, H. (2022, April). Transmit beam control in low-altitude slow-moving small targets detection. In 2022 7th International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Signal Processing (ICSP) (pp. 470-473). IEEE.” has already been published which is not expected.
2. There is no significant difference between that published conference paper and this submitted manuscript. Carefully rewrite the whole manuscript with a good manner especially abstract, introduction etc.
3. No comparison made with current existing published literature/article on this interesting topic.
4. Results section don’t provide any elaborate explanations of the findings.
5. A discussion section needs to be added with more informative explanation.
It is recommended that the authors add a separate section before conclusion section, discussing the limitations.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1) Please collect all the acronyms employed throughout the paper for readers’ convenience.
2) Please add a mathematical notation paragraph at the end of Sec. I.
3) Sec. I – Please rephrase the following sentence aiming at improved English: “The echoes of ground moving targets obey different probability distributions, which makes the received echoes of radar disordered.”
4) The authors should provide a wider context/ review of the literature on waveform/beam design with radar application, see e.g. (non-exhaustive list):
"Robust waveform and filter bank design of polarimetric radar." IEEE transactions on aerospace and electronic systems 53.1 (2017): 370-
"MIMO radar waveform design with PAPR and similarity constraints." IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 66.4 (2017): 968-981.
"Intrapulse radar-embedded communications via multiobjective optimization." IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 51.4 (2015): 2960-2974.
5) The authors should provide a figure where the general system model is depicted at a bird’s eye view.
6) The statement of contributions should be detailed so as to better highlight the technical challenges tackled in this paper.
7) I would like the authors to clarify how much of the present formulation is restricted to the ULA assumption.
8) The authors should better motivate (or at least providing supporting references) for the constraints assumed herein and their practical relevance to a real scenario.
9) Conclusion section should be enriched with a brief paragraph describing future research directions foreseen.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript proposed a SOCP‐based transmit beam control algorithm to deal with LSS detecting under the background of strong interference from ground 242 moving targets. The content is well presented and the results is well analyzed. The manuscript can be published with the current version
Author Response
Thank you for your nice suggestion.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Most of my comments have appropriately been addressed by the authors and I can see an improvement in the manuscript. I would recommend to accept the revised version of the draft to be published.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have satisfactorily addressed my previous comments
