A Web-Based Interactive Application to Simulate and Correct Distortion in Multibeam Sonars

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. There are some syntax errors in this paper.Please check it.

For example, 'thar' in Line36, the sentence in Line 240, and 'swich' in Line 263.

2. The software's functions are relatively simple.

I look forward to the improved software.

3. The shape of the target is defined to be ellipse. I suggest trying more shapes.

4. The paper lacks a conclusion. I suggest add it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Except for a few syntax errors, the English in the article is good.

Author Response

Comments 1: There are some syntax errors in this paper. Please check it. For example, 'thar' in Line36, the sentence in Line 240, and 'swich' in Line 263.

Response 1:  The mentioned errors have been corrected (lines 35 and 258 in the revised version of the manuscript). In addition, a thorough revision of the manuscript has been completed.

 

Comments 2:  The software's functions are relatively simple. I look forward to the improved software.

Response 2:  As mentioned in the manuscript, this work was intended as a direct implementation of the equations of a previous work (Boyra et al., 2022). As such, we have used the simple equations developed in that paper. Neverheless, by building this tool, we are planning to start using it while we collect data with different models of multibeam sonars we have access to. In this process we are expecting to further develop the application and the equations. As mentioned in the manuscript, our first goal is to move from binary (T/F) to Sv values and the possibility to add backscattering models. We hope to have some improvements implemented soon.

 

Comments 3: The shape of the target is defined to be ellipse. I suggest trying more shapes.

Response 3:  Yes, that would be a good addition. We are planning to introduce the possibility of manually drawing the schools in the web application in the near future.

 

Comments 4: The paper lacks a conclusion. I suggest add it.

Response 4:  A conclusion section has been added to the revised manuscript (lines 381-404).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to congratulate the authors on their innovative and impactful work. The development of a web-based interactive application to simulate and correct distortion in multibeam sonars is a significant contribution. The application’s ability to define sonar characteristics and visualize both true and distorted shapes of targets is noteworthy. The open-source nature of this tool further enhances its value, promoting accessibility and wider adoption in the scientific community. This work is not only original but also highly practical, offering a user-friendly approach to improve the accuracy of multibeam sonar measurements. The detailed geometric simulations presented in this paper will undoubtedly be beneficial for researchers and practitioners aiming to enhance their interpretations of sonar data.

The web application appears user-friendly and well-documented. Including a brief user guide or tutorial within the paper or as supplementary material would further assist new users in navigating the tool.

Overall, this paper presents a valuable and innovative tool for the marine science community. The minor comments provided are intended to enhance the paper’s clarity and practical application. However, the work is of high quality and can be accepted in its present form if the other referees agree, if not I provide minor comments below.

Congratulations again on this excellent contribution!

Minor comments

 

 

Abstract

The abstract is comprehensive, though the inclusion of a direct web link may not align with typical academic conventions. I suggest leaving the final decision on this matter to the editor.

Keywords

To enhance the visibility of your work, consider adding more keywords such as "horizontal beaming," "multibeam echosounder," and other relevant terms.

Introduction

• Line 42: Replace "omnisonar" with "omnidirectional sonar." Also, update line 352 accordingly.
• Line 46: Mention that Trygonis used an SP90 sonar equipped with a dedicated scientific output, recording one file per acoustic transmission (raw data output). Additionally, consider checking if Urga et al. used this method and not raw data analysis.
• Lines 48-51: It would be beneficial to reference works on the 3D reconstruction of fish schools, e.g. https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.2011.9.322  or https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.2010.00419.x

l

•  
• Line 64: Cite the work of Perrot et al. (2014) on efficient multibeam sonar calibration and performance evaluation. Reference: Perrot, Y., Brehmer, P., Roudaut, G., Gerstoft, P., & Josse, E. (2014). Efficient multibeam sonar calibration and performance evaluation. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 3(4), 808-820.

Method

• Delete line 169.
• Table 1: In the caption, define the target, align the symbols vertically, and clarify the term "magnitude" by describing it in the caption.

Result

• Line 254: Change "links to the related published paper" to "simple links to the literature used."
• Figure 5: Change "sampletype" to "sample Type."
• Figure 6: Ensure the text size is sufficiently large for readability.
• Line 333: Update the reference to MacLennan.
• Delete line 495.

Author Response

General comment: I would like to congratulate the authors on their innovative and impactful work. The development of a web-based interactive application to simulate and correct distortion in multibeam sonars is a significant contribution. The application’s ability to define sonar characteristics and visualize both true and distorted shapes of targets is noteworthy. The open-source nature of this tool further enhances its value, promoting accessibility and wider adoption in the scientific community. This work is not only original but also highly practical, offering a user-friendly approach to improve the accuracy of multibeam sonar measurements. The detailed geometric simulations presented in this paper will undoubtedly be beneficial for researchers and practitioners aiming to enhance their interpretations of sonar data.

The web application appears user-friendly and well-documented. Including a brief user guide or tutorial within the paper or as supplementary material would further assist new users in navigating the tool.

Overall, this paper presents a valuable and innovative tool for the marine science community. The minor comments provided are intended to enhance the paper’s clarity and practical application. However, the work is of high quality and can be accepted in its present form if the other referees agree, if not I provide minor comments below.

Congratulations again on this excellent contribution!

Response: Thank you very much for your positive review. 

 

Comments 1: The abstract is comprehensive, though the inclusion of a direct web link may not align with typical academic conventions. I suggest leaving the final decision on this matter to the editor.

Response 1: We believe that including the link in the abstract makes it easier to access for potential readers. Therefore, we would prefer to have it included if the editor agrees with it. 

 

Comments 2: To enhance the visibility of your work, consider adding more keywords such as "horizontal beaming," "multibeam echosounder," and other relevant terms.

Response 2: Thanks for the suggestion. We have added "multibeam echosounder" and "horizontal beaming" as keywords in the revised version of the manuscript. 

 

Comments 3:  Line 42: Replace "omnisonar" with "omnidirectional sonar." Also, update line 352 accordingly.

Response 3: Changed in both lines and in other locations of the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 4: Line 46: Mention that Trygonis used an SP90 sonar equipped with a dedicated scientific output, recording one file per acoustic transmission (raw data output). Additionally, consider checking if Urga et al. used this method and not raw data analysis.

Response 4: The reference of Trygonis et al 2009 was wrongly located among the references of analogical processing of sonar data. It has been moved among digitally processed sonar data (lines 42-48). The work by Uranga et al 2019 was an application of image processing techniques on sonar screenshots, hence analogical processing.

 

Comments 5: Lines 48-51: It would be beneficial to reference works on the 3D reconstruction of fish schools, e.g. https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.2011.9.322  or https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.2010.00419.x

Response 5: Done (lines 45-46 of the revised manuscript).

 

Comments 6: Line 64: Cite the work of Perrot et al. (2014) on efficient multibeam sonar calibration and performance evaluation. Reference: Perrot, Y., Brehmer, P., Roudaut, G., Gerstoft, P., & Josse, E. (2014). Efficient multibeam sonar calibration and performance evaluation. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 3(4), 808-820.

Response 6: Done (line 60 of the revised manuscript).

 

Comments 7: Delete line 169.

Response 7: Former line 169 has been deleted (line 163 in the revised manuscript).

 

Comments 8: Table 1: In the caption, define the target, align the symbols vertically, and clarify the term "magnitude" by describing it in the caption.

Response 8: The caption has been improved, including information about the two types of parameters (sonar and target). In addition, the term “Magnitude” has been replaced by “Name”, which seems clearer. Finally, the symbols have been vertically aligned. (lines162-163).

 

Comments 9: Line 254: Change "links to the related published paper" to "simple links to the literature used."

Response 9: Done (lines 247-248).

 

Comments 10:  Figure 5: Change "sampletype" to "sample Type."

Response 10: The legend has been left as “SampleType” because this is the actual legend shown in the web-based application. However, the figure caption has been expanded, trying to provide improved explanation of the legend terms: SampleType, Distortion and School (lines 250-252).

 

Comments 11:  Figure 6: Ensure the text size is sufficiently large for readability.

Response 11: The figures have been increased to improve readability.

 

Comments 12:  Line 333: Update the reference to MacLennan.

Response 12:  I do not understand: The reference seems to be correct.

 

Comments 13: Delete line 495. 

Response 13: Done.