Frequency Increment Design Method of MR-FDA-MIMO Radar for Interference Suppression
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors prepared a manuscript titled „Frequency increment design method of MR-FDA-MIMO radar for interference suppression”. Manuscript is unclearly designed and the main mistakes are as follows:
- absences of authors’ affiliations;
- abstract prepared on earlier findings what is an out of the scope of the current outlook;
-abbreviations are not introduced, e.g. MR-FDA-MIMO;
- introduction contains almost all references cited (53 references! from 58);
- poor formation of the paper with enigmatic sections’ and subsections’ titles as e.g. Signal Model (?), Proposed Algorithm (?), DOFs expansion (?), Simulation (?) etc; so unclear what has been cited and what is prepared by the authors;
-poor captions as well as references for figures not added (e.g. figs.:1, 2, 3, 4...).
Please use guidelines how to prepare the scientific manuscript.
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Thanks for your time and efforts in handling our paper. We have thought over these valuable comments carefully and revised the paper accordingly. We also sincerely follow your comment to improve the quality of our manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
please see the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
please see the attachment.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The topics discussed in the work are scientifically interesting and necessary. The article contains the state of the literature on the subject of the work. The conducted research also deserves attention, which increases the value of the work.
The article lacks literature references to mathematical formulas, which makes it difficult for the reviewer to assess which mathematical formulas are original.
The editing page of the thesis is correct and legible. But mathematical expressions are hard to read. I did not find any significant editing or factual errors.
Author Response
Thank you for a succinct summary and positive evaluation of our work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper under review presents a method for computing the frequency increment in the MR-FDA-MIMO radar system, as previously proposed by the authors in a prior publication. The frequency increment utilizes the virtual Uniform Linear Array (ULA) to effectively suppress multiple false targets. The novel contribution of the paper is primarily found in section 3.2.3, which details the frequency increment technique. The simulation results provided support the authors' claims effectively. However, it is noted that the novelty of the paper is relatively weak, and the authors should focus solely on the novel aspects, citing the previous work more concisely.
For successful acceptance, I recommend a thorough revision of the entire document to emphasize the unique contribution while avoiding the duplication of content already published. Additionally, the statement in line 150 “False target lag behind the true target by at least one maximum unambiguous range” limits the method's applicability. The authors should provide examples of applications that adhere to this premise fully. Moreover, analyzing the problem of the false target being inside the range of unambiguous range, as well as, the true target being outside the range of unambiguous range could enhance the paper's novelty and overall acceptance.
Figure 3 appears ambiguous, and the meaning of the rectangles, I only understood after reviewing the already published manuscript. I suggest providing clear and concise explanations for all figures to avoid confusion among readers.
Finally, please use the "×" symbol instead of "*" for the product notation to conform to standard mathematical conventions.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript is improved however still needs some corrections.
1. Please change title of the section 2 for more descriptive, informative. Please clarify what kind of signal model....This is unclear so far...
2. Please change title of the section 3. Are these principles used as a method? Is that method presented? Please clarify the issue otherwise this is unclear.
3. Please check English style. Authors start sentences with the expression "Figure...shows...." This is incorrect. Please improve the writing style of the manuscript.
4. Please check English grammar. E.g. lines 335-336 need a verb.
Please check English style. Authors start sentences with the expression "Figure...shows...." This is incorrect. Please improve the writing style of the manuscript.
Please check English grammar. E.g. lines 335-336 need a verb.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the professional comment. We revised the Result of the manuscript.
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In this updated iteration of the paper, I appreciate the authors' efforts in addressing most of my previous concerns. However, it is noted, once again, that the novelty of the paper is relatively weak, and the authors should focus solely on the novel aspects, citing the previous work more concisely. In my opinion the text included in the introduction have improved the paper but does avoid the duplication of content already published. The authors should emphasize what makes their work different and significant from the existing literature, and avoid repeating information that has been already published. Perhaps the authors could restructure their introduction to provide a more concise overview of the previous work, and then highlight the main contributions and innovations of their paper. This would help the readers to understand the motivation and value of their research.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the professional comment, which we have seriously considered.
We have revised the introduction in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
