Reviewers feedback

[Great Lakes Wings]

Dear Colleagues ,

I would like to share the reviewers comment about my paper titled " 4D Trajectory Planning, Guidance and Communication Handover between UAVs in WSN ."  Unfortunately it was not accepted .

 

Faithfully,

Jean-Claude Sangano

[Great Lakes Wings]

Feedback from the Reviewers

• C. Clarity of presentation:
      English grammar and spelling are proper ------------------------------------------ [3 - I agree]
      Mathematical symbols and equations are easy to understand ------------------------ [3 - I agree]
      Figures and tables are well constructed and informative -------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
      The paper is well organized ------------------------------------------------------ [3 - I agree]
      Considering the issues above, the paper is readable ------------------------------ [3 - I agree]
      
  T. Technical innovation and relevance
      The authors cite other relevant publications ------------------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
      Authors describe relevance of work to the research field ------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
      The authors apply sound technical approaches ------------------------------------- [3 - I agree]
      New ideas are convincingly and logically described ------------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
      Results are convincing ----------------------------------------------------------- [3 - I agree]
      Considering the issues above, this work should be presented  --------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
      
  Comments:
  The paper presents the progress work in the research of 
  this group about paths planning, with the application in 
  fixed winds UAVs. It used Dubins path planning method. The 
  interest of this application is the kind of vehicles.  I 
  believe that a better explanation of the new ideas that 
  they introduces, and an exposure of the state of the art is 
  necessary, and more bibliography, that explains why to use 
  these methods and the vantages that they suppose.
  
  

• C. Clarity of presentation:
      English grammar and spelling are proper ------------------------------------------ [1 - I disagree]
      Mathematical symbols and equations are easy to understand ------------------------ [3 - I agree]
      Figures and tables are well constructed and informative -------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
      The paper is well organized ------------------------------------------------------ [3 - I agree]
      Considering the issues above, the paper is readable ------------------------------ [2 - I am neutral]
      
  T. Technical innovation and relevance
      The authors cite other relevant publications ------------------------------------- [1 - I disagree]
      Authors describe relevance of work to the research field ------------------------- [1 - I disagree]
      The authors apply sound technical approaches ------------------------------------- [3 - I agree]
      New ideas are convincingly and logically described ------------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
      Results are convincing ----------------------------------------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
      Considering the issues above, this work should be presented  --------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
      
  Comments:
  The paper considers an approach for 4D trajectory planning
  and guidance to generate flyable trajectories for two fixed
  wing UAVs in order to to achieve a successful handover in a
  wireless sensor network. 
  The general topic of the paper is interesting and relevant
  to the area of research. However, even being a WiP paper,
  the paper has some weaknesses had have to be addressed.
  
  First of all, it requires a careful check of spelling and
  grammar as well as the general English formulation. For
  instance , already the summary is difficult to understand
  since it is strucured in a quite confusing way. This makes
  the paper difficult to read and also to get the main
  contributions.
  While a WiP paper should reflect on current and perhaps
  on-going work, it should nevertheless present at least a
  short state of the art and how the work intends to go
  beyond. This is totally missing in the paper, therefore also
  the importance, novelty and impact of the research is
  difficult to assess. 
  Throughout the paper, the mathematical symbols and variables
  should be used in a unique way, and denote more clear e.g.
  scalars and vectors.
  
  

• C. Clarity of presentation:
      English grammar and spelling are proper ------------------------------------------ [2 - I am neutral]
      Mathematical symbols and equations are easy to understand ------------------------ [3 - I agree]
      Figures and tables are well constructed and informative -------------------------- [1 - I disagree]
      The paper is well organized ------------------------------------------------------ [2 - I am neutral]
      Considering the issues above, the paper is readable ------------------------------ [2 - I am neutral]
      
  T. Technical innovation and relevance
      The authors cite other relevant publications ------------------------------------- [3 - I agree]
      Authors describe relevance of work to the research field ------------------------- [1 - I disagree]
      The authors apply sound technical approaches ------------------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
      New ideas are convincingly and logically described ------------------------------- [1 - I disagree]
      Results are convincing ----------------------------------------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
      Considering the issues above, this work should be presented  --------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
      
  Comments:
  The paper presents a trajectory planner for UAV that must
  replace another one when this is getting out of energy and
  therefore getting close to the end of the flaying time. 
  
  The subject of the paper is relevant, but the authors do not
  state clearly the originality and contributions of the work
  with respect to the state of the art.
  
  The paper organization is correct, but the contribution of
  the work must be highlighted.
  
  The paper presentation could be clearly improved (see below).
  
  Some particular points are as follows:
  
  Abstract:
  Please use either “4D” or “4d”, but use always the same all
  along the paper. Same with “uav” and “UAV”
  
  Typo: “considers” instead of “considers”
  
  Section I
  It would be good to include (here or in any other section) a
  picture of the UAV used.
  
  Section II
  Figure 3 should be enlarged. It is very hard reading in a
  printed copy of the paper. 
  
  The head of each step in section IIC is out of the margins.
  
  Figure 4 called in Step 1 do not match with the text. There
  is no relation between them (at least an evident one).
  
  What happens if the distance from eq. (4) in step 3 result
  negative? Which would be the potential solution to the problem?
  
  “…shown in Fig. 5 can…” instead of “shown in 5 can…”
  
  Please put between parenthesis the number of the equations
  referenced in the text, and do not call them before they are
  introduced, as it is done with eq. (13), (14) and (15),
  there s no need for this.
  
  Figure 5 should be enlarged and better explained, it is to
  small to appreciate anything.
  
  Please, leave a space between the numerical values of a
  variable and the units. E.g. “36.6 m” instead of “36.6m”,
  there are other occurrences in the paper. 
  
  Where do the numerical values presented below eq. (15) come
  from?
  
  Section III
  Second part of the first paragraph is not easy reading,
  please try to clarify it.
  
  Figure 6 is not called in the text, and the interpretation
  is not evident.
  
  Section IV
  (below eq. (19) Typo: “considers” instead of “consider”
  
  

Accepted or Rejected?

• The manuscript is not on the list of accepted manuscripts.
• The manuscript is on the list of rejected manuscripts.
• The manuscript is not on the list of withdrawn manuscripts.
• The manuscript is not on the list of registered manuscripts.