Next Article in Journal
Rice Crop Counting Using Aerial Imagery and GIS for the Assessment of Soil Health to Increase Crop Yield
Next Article in Special Issue
Bifurcation Control on the Un-Linearizable Dynamic System via Washout Filters
Previous Article in Journal
Monopole Antenna with Enhanced Bandwidth and Stable Radiation Patterns Using Metasurface and Cross-Ground Structure
Previous Article in Special Issue
Integrated Navigation Algorithm Based on Multiple Fading Factors Kalman Filter
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Research on a Non-Contact Multi-Electrode Voltage Sensor and Signal Processing Algorithm

Sensors 2022, 22(21), 8573; https://doi.org/10.3390/s22218573
by Wenbin Zhang 1,*, Yonglong Yang 1, Jingjing Zhao 2, Rujin Huang 2, Kang Cheng 2 and Mingxing He 2
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sensors 2022, 22(21), 8573; https://doi.org/10.3390/s22218573
Submission received: 18 September 2022 / Revised: 24 October 2022 / Accepted: 30 October 2022 / Published: 7 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection Multi-Sensor Information Fusion)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I have some comments on your article:

1. Literature should be checked if there are no newer items. Especially from the last 18 months.

2. At the end of the introduction section, there is no information on how the article is organized.

3. All indexes in symbols in text and equations should be checked carefully.

4. To what extent could the improvement of the PCB production process still improve the accuracy of the measurement?

5. It would be good to perform a series of tests on sensors performed, for example, by various contractors.

6. The summary should contain a few words about the possibility of using this type of smart sensor in useful measurements.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors proposed a novel multi-sensor voltage system. The paper was well-divided and well-referenced. Therefore, those are my queries and comments.

 

  • The abstract is confusing. The text is excessively straightforward and lacks information. I suggest the authors review the abstract section and improve the text. For example, describe better the research gap you have filled.

 

  • Highlight the comparison with traditional techniques. Use statical metrics to compare your results with other methods, especially in the result section and Conclusion.

 

  • The quality and resolution of Figures 9 and 13 must be improved.

 

  • The phrases used in the Conclusion section are very similar to other parts of the text. Therefore it is very repetitive. The authors should review the text of the conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for introducing changes that have improved the quality of the article. I have no more comments.

Best regards

Back to TopTop