D-TransT: Deformable Transformer Tracking

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My correction with the manuscript are relatively minor, and below are some specific comments suggested to the authors to improve the quality of the manuscript. It is suggested to the authors that the objectives of this study, the methods used to achieve them, and the results be more clearly defined in the Abstract and Conclusion sections. In addition, corrections are needed in the presentation of the results, both in the standardization of font size, image resolutions and in the naming of images. Indeed, some images are impossible to interpret because of the titles they bear, especially because of the numerous abbreviations that have not been explained.

Specific comments:

·         The abstract explains the purpose of the work and includes the background information, but lacks a clear indication of the method used.

·         The introduction provides a good general background on the subject and gives the reader an idea of the wide range of possible applications of this technology.

·         The methods used in this paper are appropriate for the goal of the study.

·         The disadvantages of this paper are of a technical nature. Furthermore, in the presentation of the results, many shortcomings were noted.

·         To understand the table shown, it is necessary to place an explanation of all the parameters shown in it at the foot/caption of the table/figure. When viewing the results, the reader should independently follow the results shown, without paying attention to abbreviations in the rest of the text. Namely, many titles do not contain enough information to easily follow the results (e.g., Figure 2; Figure 3; etc.). In addition, for some figures, the authors did not list the titles on the x- and y-axes, which certainly makes it difficult to understand the results shown (e.g., Figure 10).

·         The conclusions in this paper need improvement. It is not clear how your research contributed to knowledge gaps, and there is no information about research limitations for future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I found only several issues. Reading your paper is inspirative..

What i am missing in the paper, is the more clear reason for this research. More clear definition of problem you would like to solve....

And also just summary what I need to be in article and what already is inside..:

- Abstract contain conclusions with values.. == Not values.. please also add some more exact contribution highlight..

- flow chart of solution / process / architecture OK .. 

- references not only in introduction but in whole article while contribution is based on them.. == not at all parts.. some update is suggested. if any statement is added, you need to refer to existing literature..

- references to this journal - as to prove closeness of the topic == MISSING - And also other journals like IEEE trans. references will be beneficial.. .

- some not so long conclusions - including numbers, values, pros and cons.. == NOT . need to be also with values..  please update.. AND limitations of your contribution!

- future directions in the end of conclusion.. == /not clear - you need to be more specific!!

- reasonable number of references.. == OK..

- Q1/Q2 journal articles in references.. == OK

 

So please update as MINOR revisions from me! 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf