Reconstruction of the Sound Speed Profile in Typical Sea Areas Based on the Single Empirical Orthogonal Function Regression Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Section 1 must be improved.

-       Authors should emphasize contribution and novelty, the introduction needs to clarify the motivation, challenges, contribution, objectives, and significance/implication. 

-       You should introduce the problem in more detail so that the reader is immediately clear about the purpose of your study.

-       Specify better the essential elements of the problem.

-       You should add more information in the introductory part, you should add other works that have also addressed the problem.

-       You must properly introduce your work, specify well what were the goals you set yourself and how you approached the problem.

-       What are the advantages of the proposed work in comparison to already existing ones? This must be clear in the text. Please compare the proposed work with other existing ones.

Section 2 must be improved.

-       In this section you introduce the materials and methods you used in this study. You start rightly from the data but you should remind the reader how you will use these datasets, specify how such data will be used, how to use these datasets for the reconstruction of the sound speed profile.

-       Add a flowchart for the whole procedure to introduce the methodology

-       Introduce adequately the regression concepts

-       You must properly introduce the equation, list in detail the variables contained in it with a concise description of the meaning. To make them more readable show them in a bulleted list. In this way the reader will be able to understand the contribution of each variable.

-       I could not find a detailed description of the evaluation metrics you have adopted. How will you measure your model's performance? This section is essential in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of your methodology. Furthermore, only by adopting adequate metrics will it be possible to compare your results with those obtained by other researchers.

-       83) Add this link as reference, I will not repeat this advice again, it also applies to the other occurrences.

-       99) Introduce adequately the sEOF-R method

Section 3 must be improved.

-       A description of the hardware and software used for data processing is completely missing. Describe in detail the hardware used:  Extract this data from the datasheet of the hardware manufacturer. To make reading the specifications of the hardware more immediate, you can insert them in a table, listing the instruments used and the specific characteristics for each.

-       Also, you should describe in detail the software platform you used.

-       Also describe the machine learning-based libraries you used.

-       Figure 4-7must be improved: The text is too small and appears blurry, making it difficult for the reader to follow the flow of information.

-       Also missing axis labels, each subplot must be labeled with a letter and then correctly described in the caption. In graphs where there are curves of different colors it is necessary to add a legend.

Section 5 must be improved.

-       Paragraphs are missing where the possible practical applications of the results of this study are reported. What these results can serve the people, it is necessary to insert possible uses of this study that justify their publication.

-       They also lack the possible future goals of this work. Do the authors plan to continue their research on this topic?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper describes results of research connected with reconstruction of the sound speed profile used to underwater target detection.

Analyzed using of Single Empirical Orthogonal Function Regression is well described. Results are also clearly presented.

However there is some mistaket which can be improved:

1. Introduction and bibliography: there should be more papers of other researchers cited to prove that topic is up to date and interesting to other scientist

2. Conclusions: there is lack in showing potencial of using proposed method; authors didn't presented advantages of proposed methods, especially in relation to other methods.

I recomment paper for publication after minor revision.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Kindly see the attached file, thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed all the reviewer's comments with attention and modified the paper with the suggestions provided. The new version of the paper has improved both in the presentation and in the contents