Autonomous UAV Safety Oriented Situation Monitoring and Evaluation System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article is a UAV monitoring system. The authors developed a UAV on-board data measurement system, with autonomous safely evaluation. I have some observation here:
The overall presentation of the article is complex to understand.
The authors combined hardware, software, safely-measures in one platform which make the article complex to understand. It is better to split-out the manuscript to make it easier to understand.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere is a scope of enhancement of the quality of the English language of the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Design of autonomous UAV security monitoring and evaluation system” (Manuscript Number: drones-3069306). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
Revised portion are marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ comments are as flowing:
Response to Reviewer #1:
[Comment 1] The overall presentation of the article is complex to understand.
Reply: Many thanks to the reviewers for suggesting that some of the text in the manuscript was difficult to understand, and we have improved the presentation in the newly submitted manuscript. At the same time, we have highlighted what was changed in the manuscript.
[Comment 2] The authors combined hardware, software, safely-measures in one platform which make the article complex to understand. It is better to split-out the manuscript to make it easier to understand.
Reply: Many thanks to the reviewers for their comments on the structural arrangement of the paper. We have changed some of the structure in the manuscript, as well as replaced subheadings that were not clearly expressed in the original text.
How the paper is modified: We improved the title, introduction and abstract of the manuscript, respectively, before and after the improvements as follows:
In title:
|
Before modification
|
|
After modification
|
In introduction:
|
Before modification
|
|
After modification
|
In abstract:
|
Before modification
|
|
After modification
|
[Comment 3] There is a scope of enhancement of the quality of the English language of the manuscript.
Reply: We are very grateful to the reviewers for their comments on the English quality of the paper. We have corrected the English expressions in the manuscript to bring the expressions more in line with the norms of writing academic English. At the same time, we have highlighted what was changed in the manuscript.
According to the reviewers’ comments, we have made extensive modifications to our manuscript and supplemented extra data to make our results convincing. Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript.
We appreciate for editors and reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Yours sincerely,
Zhuoyong Shi
June 30, 2024
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthere is common sign of using AI editor and there is 8-12% Plagiarism in overall but the content is interesting .
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Design of autonomous UAV security monitoring and evaluation system” (Manuscript Number: drones-3069306). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
Revised portion are marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ comments are as flowing:
Response to Reviewer #2:
[Comment 1] there is common sign of using AI editor and there is 8-12% Plagiarism in overall but the content is interesting .
Reply: Many thanks to the reviewers for their interest in our manuscript, which we have improved in its linguistic part in the newly uploaded version.
According to the reviewers’ comments, we have made extensive modifications to our manuscript and supplemented extra data to make our results convincing. Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript.
We appreciate for editors and reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Yours sincerely,
Zhuoyong Shi
June 30, 2024
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents a UAV flight online monitoring and safety posture assessment system. The authors evaluate metrics such as navigation distance, vacuum speed, navigation capacity mach number, movement trajectory curve, and others. All the design and implementation are described it sounds very interesting.
The authors present plenty of details of implementation and design, which is very plausible to help students reproduce those experiments. Congratulations to the authors.
Some aspects could be improved, for example, It's not clear in the title, abstract, and introduction that this paper is about safety position monitoring and not about other aspects of security. Perhaps because of the use of the phrase "safety condition assessment", this one can be replaced by other discrimination to clarify the main aim of this paper. The title of the paper needs to be improved to stay more clear about the main aim of the paper.
In the introduction, the use of the word "Literature" to reference a work it's not right. The authors can replace all the references with non-direct references, using "In existing research", "Some approaches", "Efforts to" expressions or only applying the "[...]" followed by a description of research, for example:
Replace this "Literature [20] established a detection system for athletes' training to monitor the entire process of sports training." by "Some researches established a detection system for athletes' training to monitor the entire process of sports training [20]."
Still in the introduction, the references: "Literature [17] applied artificial intelligence based WSN technology to the home security monitoring system and effectively improved the accuracy of home security monitoring" and "Literature [19] combines electro-method exploration with geological disaster monitoring to develop an improved geological disaster monitoring system. Adequate technical support is provided for geological disaster monitoring.", What is the correlation with this paper? The use of a non-correlated literature review becomes confusing understanding the real aim of this paper. I suggest reviewing these related papers.
Equation (1) needs a standard for the use of "h" or "H" to represent the altitude.
If possible, the authors can upload a YouTube video with executed tests to show these results. It will provide more visibility for the paper and more clarify the practical results. I suggested constructing a repository of codes used.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Design of autonomous UAV security monitoring and evaluation system” (Manuscript Number: drones-3069306). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
Revised portion are marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ comments are as flowing:
Response to Reviewer #3:
[Comment 1] Some aspects could be improved, for example, It's not clear in the title, abstract, and introduction that this paper is about safety position monitoring and not about other aspects of security. Perhaps because of the use of the phrase "safety condition assessment", this one can be replaced by other discrimination to clarify the main aim of this paper. The title of the paper needs to be improved to stay more clear about the main aim of the paper.
Reply: Many thanks to the reviewers for suggesting problems in our title, introduction and abstract, which we have improved in our latest submission of the manuscript.
How the paper is modified: We improved the title, introduction and abstract of the manuscript, respectively, before and after the improvements as follows:
In title:
|
Before modification
|
|
After modification
|
In introduction:
|
Before modification
|
|
After modification
|
In abstract:
|
Before modification
|
|
After modification
|
[Comment 2] In the introduction, the use of the word "Literature" to reference a work it's not right. The authors can replace all the references with non-direct references, using "In existing research", "Some approaches", "Efforts to" expressions or only applying the "[...]" followed by a description of research, for example:
Replace this "Literature [20] established a detection system for athletes' training to monitor the entire process of sports training." by "Some researches established a detection system for athletes' training to monitor the entire process of sports training [20]."
Reply: Many thanks to the reviewers for raising the issue of literature citation in our introduction, which we have corrected in our latest submission.
How the paper is modified: The application of literature in the introduction is corrected below:
|
Before modification
|
|
After modification
|
[Comment 3] Still in the introduction, the references: "Literature [17] applied artificial intelligence based WSN technology to the home security monitoring system and effectively improved the accuracy of home security monitoring" and "Literature [19] combines electro-method exploration with geological disaster monitoring to develop an improved geological disaster monitoring system. Adequate technical support is provided for geological disaster monitoring.", What is the correlation with this paper? The use of a non-correlated literature review becomes confusing understanding the real aim of this paper. I suggest reviewing these related papers.
Reply: We are very grateful to the reviewers for raising questions about the references in our manuscript. In fact, we were hoping to use this literature in the introduction to show that safety monitoring systems have applications in many fields. We are very sorry that readers may misunderstand our literature review due to our inappropriate description. Therefore, we have revised the description of this part of the literature in the introduction.
How the paper is modified: We have changed the descriptions of the literature 17 and literature 19 sections with the following changes:
|
Before modification
|
|
After modification
|
[Comment 4] Equation (1) needs a standard for the use of "h" or "H" to represent the altitude.
Reply: We are grateful to the reviewers for pointing out the mistake in table1, which we have corrected in our latest submission of the manuscript.
How the paper is modified: We have improved the description of the Eq. 1 prior with the following changes:
|
Before modification
|
|
After modification
|
[Comment 5] If possible, the authors can upload a YouTube video with executed tests to show these results. It will provide more visibility for the paper and more clarify the practical results. I suggested constructing a repository of codes used.
Reply: We are very grateful to the reviewers for their suggestions, and we will consider presenting the results of our manuscript in a number of media outlets after the paper is published.
According to the reviewers’ comments, we have made extensive modifications to our manuscript and supplemented extra data to make our results convincing. Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript.
We appreciate for editors and reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Yours sincerely,
Zhuoyong Shi
June 30, 2024
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCan be accepted after going through a rigorous English check.
Author Response
Many thanks to the reviewers for demanding the English quality of our manuscript. We have touched up the English grammar of the article in our latest submitted manuscript.
